Tag

Decision-Making Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

1117: How to Hack Your Odds to Succeed More and Fail Less with Kyle Austin Young

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Kyle Austin Young shares his techniques for de-risking goals to improve your chances of success.

You’ll Learn

  1. The thinking trap that accounts for most failures
  2. The four paths to success
  3. Why thinking negative improves your odds

About Kyle 

Kyle Austin Young is an award-winning strategy consultant for high achievers, entrepreneurs, and leaders in a wide range of fields. This work has given him the opportunity to develop and refine a powerful system for accomplishing big, meaningful goals that focuses on understanding and changing your odds of success. Kyle is a popular writer for Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, The Boston Globe, CNBC, Psychology Today, Forbes, and Business Insider. When he’s not writing, consulting, or spending time with family, you’ll usually find him fishing.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Monarch.com. Get 50% off your first year on with the code AWESOME.

Kyle Austin Young Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Kyle, welcome!

Kyle Austin Young
Thank you for having me. I’m excited to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to talk about success and numbers, two of my favorite things, Kyle.

Kyle Austin Young
Good for you. This is a good fit.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, right. Well, could you start by sharing with us a particularly surprising and fascinating discovery you’ve made as you are putting together this opus, Success is a Numbers Game?

Kyle Austin Young
I think one of the biggest surprises to me was I feel like I’ve been able to stumble into why we see so much failure in our world, why we have stats floating around that nine out of 10 businesses fail, that such a vast majority of people who set New Year’s resolutions, ultimately, won’t accomplish them. We hear that most mergers and acquisitions fail to create lasting value for shareholders. Why does that happen? Ultimately, I think that a lot of people are falling into a really specific thinking trap, and I’ll explain it in the context of an example.

Let’s say that you’ve set the goal of trying to run a marathon, and you hire a running coach who says, “I can get you there, but there’s three things you’re going to have to do. I need you to eat, sleep, and train exactly how I tell you to. I’m going to give you a regimen for each of those three things. And if you do all three of them, you’ll be ready on race day. If you don’t, you’re not going to be able to successfully run such a long distance.”

So, in this goal, we’ve learned that there’s three things that have to go right for us to get what we want. And I think when humans set goals, we instinctively try to get a sense of what’s going to be expected of us, what’s going to be required for us to achieve success. I think that’s something we do naturally. I think we also check in with ourselves and ask the question, “Do I think I can do each of those things?”

In this case, “Do I think I can eat, sleep, and train the way that I’m going to have to?” And we try to get a sense of that. I’m going to layer some numbers on it to illustrate where the thinking trap often occurs. Let’s just say that we think it’s 70% across the board, 70% chance I’ll eat the way I’m supposed to, 70% chance I’ll sleep the way I’m supposed to, 70% chance I’ll train the way that I’m supposed to.

This is where the trap happens. A lot of people fall into this error of averaging. We try to consider what’s going to have to go right in order to get what we want, and if we feel good about the individual prerequisites, we feel good about the goal as a whole. And, intuitively, that makes some sense.

If we feel good that we can eat the way we’re supposed to, sleep the way we’re supposed to, train the way we’re supposed to, then why would we not feel good about our ability to run a marathon if it’s the product of these three behaviors, these three disciplines?

But in reality, we can’t average, we have to multiply if we want something that’s mathematically sound. And if we multiply 0.7 times 0.7 times 0.7, we find there’s only a 34% chance that we’re going to be ready on race day. We don’t know where we’re going to slip up, but the odds are we’re going to drop the ball in at least one of these three areas.

And I think that was the most surprising discovery for me writing the book was when I took it outside of the context of my own consulting work and into the world at large. And I think it’s an explanation for why we see so much failure in our world. In this example, we only need three things to go right. And we feel pretty good about each of them individually.

Now, imagine how many things have to go right for a business to be successful, for a merger to be successful, for a public policy to be successful. We start to understand how we can quickly experience a lot of failure if we’re not doing everything that we can to optimize our odds.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I like that a lot. I was literally multiplying in my head as you were speaking like 34%. And, yeah, that is an eye-opening paradigm shift that illuminates a whole lot. And I’m thinking about this applies to just buying something. Like, if you have a lot of criteria for, let’s say we’re talking about food, “Okay, I want to eat healthy. Well, okay, well, it has to be organic and it has to be gluten-free and it has to have, you know, at least a third of its calories from protein.”

And then it has, there’s like two foods. There are two foods in the universe of food that meet my criteria. And it’s like, “Well, I’m not asking for too much,” but when you’re asking for all of those things at the same time, and most things don’t have any of your individual boxes checked, when you aggregate it, yeah, you narrow the field in a hurry.

Kyle Austin Young
It’s a good parallel and it explains or illustrates how important it is to try to design really straightforward paths to the things that we want. A lot of people are trying to wing it, “Oh, I’ll figure it out as I go,” but every time we add a new prerequisite to our success, we can dramatically reduce our odds of getting what we want.

So, it’s important to do what, I call it creating a success diagram, but write down, “What’s the goal? What’s everything that has to go right in order for me to achieve it?” and that’s the beginnings of having the ability to tinker and try to make sure that we’re optimizing to make this as streamlined as possible, because if we’re adding in steps that we could make work around with a better plan, we’re ultimately hurting our odds of getting a good outcome.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, it’s interesting when you spoke with the 70-70-70, you know, I’m a former strategy consultant from Bain and my brain just goes that way. I have a feeling, though, Kyle, you and I may be in the minority in this universe. Can you maybe get us oriented to your numbery probability worldview, if that doesn’t come naturally for folks?

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, let me give you an example that has no numbers whatsoever, okay? So, when I first graduated from college, again, here’s a no numbers example, I wasn’t super excited about the entry-level positions that I was seeing. I wanted something more engaging, something more demanding, something with more responsibility, something with better opportunities for growth and career acceleration.

So, I did something really audacious. I was 21 years old, had a bachelor’s degree from the University of Oklahoma and I applied to be the product development director at a growing health organization. And, were I to win this position, I was going to be the boss for people who were in their 50s, 60s, 70s. Again, I’m 21. Some of these people have PhDs, master’s degrees. They’re experts in their field, and I’m applying to be their boss. So, a little bit audacious, but I got the interview, and I wanted to make the most of it.

Pete Mockaitis
No kidding.

Kyle Austin Young
So, at that point, what I did is I engaged in a habit that I call thinking negative. Most of the time when we’re pursuing big goals, people encourage us, “Think positive. Don’t worry about what could go wrong. If it’s meant to happen, it’ll happen,” or, “You’ll cross that bridge when you come to it.” I think that’s really, really bad advice.

I understand it. The fear is that if we identify these risks, maybe we’ll be so discouraged that we won’t move forward. I believe we have an opportunity to use our creativity to systematically de-risk our goals. So even at this time, before I was consulting, this was when I was just trying to get my first job out of college, I tried to identify, “What are the potential bad outcomes that could happen instead of what I want?”

And the reason for that is we can understand probability similar to how we traditionally understood matter. We pretty much all heard the phrase that, “Matter can’t be created or destroyed. They can just be transferred and rearranged.” And that’s true when it comes to probability. The odds of all the different outcomes that could happen add up to 100%.

So, if we want to make a good outcome more likely, we have to make the bad outcomes less likely. And one of the most straightforward ways to do that is by thinking negative, identifying the bad outcomes, and trying to reduce the risk of those things coming to life.

So, in the context of applying for this really important position, something that had the opportunity to really accelerate my career, I identified three potential bad outcomes. The first was that maybe the hiring squad would reject me because I looked so young and they were concerned there’s just no way that someone so young could lead this team. You know, understandable.

Well, what could I do in response to that? I couldn’t change my biological age, you know, I couldn’t do the Captain America thing and take the superhero.

Pete Mockaitis
Put a white beard disguise.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, well, that’s literally, half of that is what I did. Half of that is literally what I did. I was 21 years old. I looked like I was even younger than that. So, in preparation for the interview, I grew a beard and it just made me look several years older. It didn’t make me look as old as the people I’d be managing, but it at least took the edge off. I didn’t walk in looking like a little bitty kid.

So that was just a creative solution to try to de-risk that potential bad outcome. In the book, I call them PBO, another PBO that I identified was they might not want to hire me because of how flimsy my resume was. I didn’t have a lot of experience. I was fresh out of college. Again, I couldn’t change that. I couldn’t go out and get years of experience in preparation for this interview. But I could try to redirect the conversation.

And so, what I did is before the interview, I typed up a plan for all of the ways that I was going to try to reinvent and optimize this department. It became so thick that I had to have it spiral-bound, it was a book, and I took it with me and gave it to everybody I interviewed with.

And when they would ask me questions about my past, about my resume, I would just redirect it to become a conversation about the future, about the plan that I had for this department. And it, ultimately, took a lot of the pressure off when it came to not having a lot to show in terms of prior work experience.

The third potential bad outcome I realized, this is the last one I’ll give an example of, was that there was concern that I might not fit in with the existing team members. They might reject me thinking, “How is somebody young going to get along with these people who are so much older than he is? These people who are his parents’ age, his grandparents’ age, how is he going to be able to manage them effectively?”

So, what I did was a little bit creative. I asked an existing team member if the department had read any books lately, and she recommended a few different titles. And so, I went out and read all of them. And what that gave me the ability to do was speak this team’s language. I knew about their goals. I knew about some of the frameworks they were using and considering. I could make inside jokes.

I ended up in a group interview at one point where it was me and several other candidates who had gray hair, much older than I was, much more experienced, probably much more qualified. And I was running circles around them because I knew exactly what the team was up to. I made a joke at one point. There was a book out called The Whuffie Factor. It was about how brands can win social capital.

And somebody on the team presented an idea and I said, “I think that could bring us a lot of whuffie.” And I remember looking around, the other candidate’s eyes are bugging out of their heads, like, “What did he just say? What is he talking about?” But the existing team members were all laughing. They knew exactly what I meant.

So, at the end of all of this, I got the job. I became the product development director for this health organization at 21 years old. It all started by identifying what was going to have to go right. In this case, it was pretty straightforward. I just needed the offer. I already had the interview. But what could go wrong? What were the potential bad outcomes that could sabotage me getting what I wanted?

I identified three. I used my creativity to try to take as much risk out of them as I could. I tilted the odds in my favor and I walked away with a good outcome. I would later be laid off from that job, laid off from my next leadership position, and that’s what inspired me to start consulting. It was the diversification that it brought. But it was certainly something that set my career on a very different track than it would have been if I’d started in one of those assistants to the marketing manager roles.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Kyle, that is a heck of a story. And I imagine that the people hiring you must’ve been scratching their heads, like, “Who the heck is this guy? Where did he come from? Are we crazy to actually consider this? But, like, we all saw the same thing. He was saying a lot more smart stuff than the other people. Nobody else had a spiral-bound opus master plan for what to do. So, in a way, it seems crazy to hire him, but another way, it seems crazy to not hire him.”

Were they open with you about this?

Kyle Austin Young
Oh, that’s exactly what happened.

Pete Mockaitis
Like, Kyle, “Here’s where we’re coming from, man. Here’s the deal.”

Kyle Austin Young
I got a call from one person, I think, it was kind of unsanctioned, and it was just him saying, “Obviously, we can’t offer you this job, you’re 21, this makes no sense.” But then I, just listening to him talk himself out of it. And so, I just sat there and it was about 30 minutes of him trying to talk himself out of voting to hire me.

I got an email from the CEO the day after that interview where there was a group interview. I just bumped into him in the hallway and, again, I’m crazy. So, I said, you know, “Hi, I’m Kyle. Here’s one of my spiral-bound plans for turning around the product development team,” and gave it to the CEO of the organization.

The next morning, I woke up to an email from the CEO, who I wasn’t really supposed to have even seen that day, and I thought, “Oh, this can’t be good.” And he said, “In my entire career, you’re the most prepared candidate I’ve ever seen.” And so, there’s this line in sales, I’m not a salesman by trade, but there’s a line that, “Selling is overcoming objections.”

And I see probability hacking as a similar discipline. Essentially, we have something that we want to happen, reality has some objections to that because our goal comes at the opportunity cost of all these other potential outcomes, and it’s our job to kind of sell life on the future that we want, try to overcome these objections, take these risks off the table, and make it where our path is the path of least resistance.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, boy, you know, Kyle, this is a very exciting conversation. I feel like this whole body of work, this collection of ideas, has tremendous flexibility and power and implication. What comes to mind for me is, like, the 80-20 principle. Like, that’s just, like, eye-opening, game-changing, a wide array of things. And, boy, when you get it, things can be so transformative, it almost can feel like magic.

And so, boy, there are so many implications to this, but one I’m thinking about is that you got to get pretty specific, and you got to get pretty somewhat focused on a narrow-ish set of priorities. Because, Kyle, I mean, you can’t make a spiral-bound plan and read everybody’s favorite books for 20 interesting job opportunities. You got to kind of narrow the playing field in order to go all in on that thing and create unheard of results.

Kyle Austin Young

I think that’s true. I think that, in that specific example, had I been applying for 20 jobs that I wanted as bad as I wanted that product development director job, there could have been some challenges. Now, I would, in a friendly way, counter and say that I think some emerging technologies are making that more possible than ever.

We now have tools that can help us create proposals much more quickly than we could when I was applying for my first job out of college. We now have tools that summarize books for us and give us the opportunity to digest the key insights from a piece of content a lot faster than we would have, otherwise.

But, yes, you’re absolutely right that it starts with a goal. It starts with getting really clear on what you want, and, in that context, you then have the opportunity to optimize your odds. One of the reasons why I think that’s really important also is when it comes to asking for advice. I’ve, historically, this sounds arrogant, but I’ve historically been kind of opposed to asking for advice, and it’s not because I think I know everything, not by a long shot.

But what I found is a lot of people’s advice is unapplicable in ways that sometimes can even be confusing. And I’ll tell you a story about that. One time, I was considering taking on this new consulting client and it was going to be a huge retainer, lots and lots of money. But this was also just a notoriously difficult person. It was going to be a really stressful engagement if I chose to take it on. And I wasn’t sure what to do.

So, I decided to reach out to some peers and colleagues and ask them what they thought. And, originally, I was really frustrated because it almost split down the middle. About half of them told me, “Take the money,” and about half of them told me, “Why would you want the stress?” And at the time, I just thought, “How am I going to be able to make heads or tails out of this advice?”

And, finally, I noticed a trend. And the trend was that the people who I asked who had significantly less money than I did, almost unanimously said, “Take the job. Make the money. Why would you not?” And the people who I asked who had a lot more money than I did, almost unanimously said, “Why would you enter into such a stressful contract just in exchange for a paycheck? You don’t need that money. Go make it somewhere else.”

And what that taught me was these people weren’t really giving me advice in the context of what I wanted, in the context of my opportunities and limitations. They were giving me advice from their own context. The people who wanted money told me, “Go get the money,” and the people who wanted to avoid stress told me, “Go avoid the stress.” But that wasn’t really something that accounted for my priorities.

So, I encourage people to create a success diagram, which includes everything we’ve talked about. What’s the goal? What’s everything that has to go right for you to achieve it? For each thing that has to go right, what are the things that can go wrong?

And what’s powerful for that is it creates a context. It creates a context that allows me to ask other people for advice because now we’re on the same page. It creates a context that allows me to collaborate with other people who might be participating in the project. I can now delegate, I can brainstorm, I can say, “Here’s what we’re pursuing, here’s what has to go right, here’s what could go wrong.”

“Kevin, what can you do about this risk over here? Felicia, what can you do to help us take the risk out of this other potential bad outcome?” We now have the ability to have a shared text and, ultimately, it makes us a lot more effective when we’re pursuing big goals.

It also just gives us a way to store information. So, just as you mentioned, as the context changes, as we get new information, we have a place to put it where we’re constantly getting smarter over time and we can get that focus that you described.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Kyle, this is such good stuff. Walk us through the whole thing in depth. So, we’re talking about the diagram. You just keep talking.

Kyle Austin Young
Well, you know, ultimately, what I teach in the book is I think that there’s been this cultural narrative that there’s two types of people who succeed. People who are really talented, connected, privileged, and people who get lucky. I don’t think that’s a very good understanding. It doesn’t take probability into account at all.

I think there’s four paths to success. I think some people succeed in spite of really bad odds because they get lucky. I tell the story in the book of Norma Jeane Dougherty. She’s working at an aviation munitions factory during the war when a photographer comes to take pictures for a military magazine. He notices how pretty she is.

He says, “Would you be interested in potentially having a career in modeling, be on some magazine covers?” She says, “Sure.” Quits her factory job, has a successful modeling career, and then, ultimately, has a really successful acting career under the stage name Marilyn Monroe.

Now, that’s a cool success story. Good for her. But if you met somebody who is an aspiring actress, would you reverse-engineer Marilyn Monroe’s story?

Pete Mockaitis

“Here’s what you got to do. Just get discovered on your job and then…”

Kyle Austin Young
“Step one, we’re going to need to get you a job at an aviation munitions factory because that’s what Marilyn Monroe did.” No, you wouldn’t. She, undeniably, achieved enormous success, but she did that, overcoming really bad odds. She got lucky, right?

So that is one of the paths through which people succeed. And it’s important to acknowledge that because it explains some of the success stories in our world that people have had such a difficult time reverse-engineering. It might not be as obvious as Marilyn Monroe, but there are stories where we’re out there, you know, “Oh, every CEO drives a blue car. Buy a blue car and you’ll be a CEO.”

No, you won’t. That’s unrelated. There’s no causation there. They just like blue cars. It has nothing to do with that. So, it’s important to understand that some people are succeeding through luck. It’s important also to understand that we have the opportunity to experience more luck in our lives when we recognize that you don’t always have to beat the odds, sometimes you can play them.

One way that you can overcome bad odds is through the power of multiple attempts. I interview entrepreneurs for the book, like Apoorva Mehta who founded Instacart. Instacart experienced enormous growth during the pandemic because people were at home, they couldn’t go to the grocery store, and grocery delivery was in exactly the right place at the right time.

I think it was, don’t quote me, I could find the number, I believe he said it was a $9 billion increase to their valuation. Just absolutely remarkable what they were able to achieve. So, you hear that, you think, “Wow, how could anybody be that lucky to be in exactly the right place at the right time?”

Then you learn that Apoorva Mehta started over 20 businesses before Instacart. And you think about these numbers in our heads that nine out of 10 businesses fail. Well, we would expect a couple of his businesses to be successful. Maybe not nine billion in ten months, but, all of sudden, these odds have changed because of the power of multiple attempts.

In the book, I also talk about Thomas Edison. Thomas Edison was in a race to develop the first practical incandescent lamp, and he’s, ultimately, competing for this really valuable patent that could change the trajectory of his career, but he’s not the only person trying to do this. All of them are struggling to find a filament that can get hot enough to glow without catching on fire or snuffing out, not being worth the effort.

What he did that was different than these other inventors, was he experimented with 6,000 different plant materials, and he ultimately finds that carbonized bamboo, which would not be my first guess, is this nearly ideal filament for what he was looking for. He gets this patent. It helps him achieve enormous success in his career. So, some people are succeeding because of the power of multiple attempts, and I give some examples of that.

Other people are succeeding because they choose to, very intentionally, pursue goals where their odds are good. And I think there’s a lot of wisdom in that, too, to recognize that we have areas of strength, and that because of those areas of strength, we have an opportunity to choose goals that are more likely to succeed. And then success tends to beget success in other areas.

I give the example in the book of people who want to play in the National Basketball Association, just to illustrate how our attributes can change our odds. If you’re shorter than six feet tall, and the average US male is 5’9″, I’m 5’11”, so I’m under six feet tall, then your odds of playing in the NBA are one in 1.2 million. So that’s terrible odds. Terrible odds.

But here’s what’s really interesting. If you’re between six feet tall and six foot three, your odds go up to one in a hundred thousand. If you’re between six four and six seven, it’s one in eight thousand. Between 6’8 and 6’11, 1 and 200. And this is what knocks people over if you happen to stand over 7 feet tall, if you’re over 7 feet tall, your odds of playing in the NBA are actually 1 in 7. One out of every seven people over seven feet tall is playing in the National Basketball Association.

Pete Mockaitis
The rule of seven.

Kyle Austin Young
At least in the United States of America, yeah, you’d line them up. And that’s pretty incredible to think about, that as we just got incrementally taller, our odds changed and changed and changed. And by the end of it, we went from one in 1.2 million to one in seven.

So, there’s real power in taking stock of, “What are the areas where we do have strength? What are the areas where we do have advantages? They might not be the goals that we’re most excited about right now, but could pursuing some of those goals lead to opportunities down the line?

You know, I’m really thankful to have this book deal. One of the things that made that possible was, first, writing for sites like Harvard Business Review and Forbes. Those were smaller accomplishments, but they brought bigger accomplishments within reach.

And then the fourth path to success is what we’ve described. It’s probability hacking. It’s taking the odds we have, thinking negative, identifying bad outcomes, and using our creativity to ultimately make those odds better.

In some ways, we can layer those onto the other three paths. We can use it to get lucky more often. We can use it to reduce the number of repeated attempts that we might need. We can use it to make more goals, things that actually look pretty good from an outlook standpoint. So that’s more or less how I think about this.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so thinking about your second chapter, “Understanding Your Odds,” I mean, you had a delightful bit of research there about the NBA. How does one go about knowing the odds given, by definition, the future is not completely knowable? So, I mean, I could just make up some numbers in a spreadsheet, but how do I get those?

Kyle Austin Young
It’s a fair question, and I’m very transparent about the fact that this is going to be an estimate. You have to kind of choose between two different realities. You can turn to base rates, which don’t typically take your individual attributes into account. They’re normally a guess. Often, odds are dramatically misreported. Some of the things that, you know, considered understood to be absolutely true aren’t even close to that.

I bring in a couple of news headlines. Here’s three. These are real-life headlines published by actual news outlets. One of them is, “Texas man survives one in a million chance of being struck by lightning.” Another is, “One in a million chance, Salado couple’s car struck by lightning.” Another is, “The odds of getting struck by lightning are one in a million. Wednesday, it happened three times in Wichita.”

One of those stories actually features a quote from an emergency room doctor affirming the idea that your odds of being struck by lightning, actually the exact quote is, “Your chances of being struck by lightning are roughly one in a million.” But according to the National Weather Service, the actual number for the average American is one in 15,300.

It’s not one in a million, not even close to one in a million. The closest I could come to explaining that one in a million number is that’s roughly your odds in any given year, but it’s not your odds over the course of a lifetime.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, I think you’re being generous, Kyle. I think no one really thought about it. They just say, “It’s really rare, so we’ll call it one in a million.”

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, sure, it’s a one in a million thing. We love the number one in a million. It’s one in a million. I give the example. I share a short story that’s about someone who dies in a tragic bicycle accident. It’s fictional, but the phrase one in a million comes up. And, okay, sure, dying in a bicycle accident, one in a million. Surely, right, I mean, that has to be so rare. According to the National Safety Council, one out of every 3,546 Americans will die in a bicycle accident.

So many of these numbers that are circulating in our world are just made up. They’re misreported. They don’t take our individual attributes into account. Sometimes they’re weighed down by people who made bad decisions.

When we think about the odds of a new product succeeding when it’s released to the market, there are rates for that based on research. But then you think about projects like Bic for Her, which was a line of writing pens that were marketed to have a thinner barrel to fit a woman’s hand.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, women need that.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, women need a thinner pen so that they can write effectively. And this product got laughed out of the market, pretty quickly discontinued, but there were significant investments made to release this product.

And so, when you think about that, if they were to just do even a little bit of keyword research, I give some examples in the book, they could find pretty quickly that no one was looking for pens for women. That wasn’t a desire. There were people looking for a lot of other types of pens that could’ve been potentially a better opportunity if they were to release a product in that space.

And so, base rates are also weighed down by people who made decisions that you probably wouldn’t make, right? We look at how many failed products there are. Well, we found that the number one cause of failed product releases, according to some data by CB Insights, is a lack of, they call it no market need. It’s just a lack of demand.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, nobody wants the thing.

Kyle Austin Young
Yeah, nobody wants the thing. So now we’re thinking about, “Well, base rates say that most of the products that get released failed.” Okay, but is that because people are releasing things that they never took the time to validate at all? If I take the time to validate demand for my product or service, my odds are very different.

So, ultimately, you ask the question, “Where do these numbers come from?” And you have to make a choice. You can turn to base rates, which have a number of flaws, or you can estimate. And what the leading forecasters in the world do is they will typically try to break big predictions about world events into smaller ones.

Instead of saying, you know, “What are the odds of this war happening?” they’ll say, “What are the odds that this country experiences an affordability crisis while this other country experiences a surge in nationalistic pride?” whatever the case may be. They try to break it down into the component parts, the ingredients that could lead to a conflict like that or to a good outcome, depending on what they’re predicting.

And when we break that down in the context of our goals, I find that we have an opportunity to make predictions that can be, in some ways, an antidote to overconfidence. If we go back to that idea of running a marathon, we need to eat, sleep, and train according to specific regimens for 90 days, what’s the base rate that says whether Kyle will stick with his diet for 90 days? I mean, I’m Kyle. Like, there’s no statistician running the numbers on that.

So, to some extent, there is an expectation in the context of these very individualized and personal goals that we’re going to have to make some estimates. But by breaking them down into the component parts, and then being informed by base rates, letting them challenge our assumptions, I think we have an opportunity to deepen our understanding of how likely we are to get what we want.

And again, beyond that, by probability hacking, by using our creativity to take the risk out of these goals, we have an opportunity to improve our odds of success. And that’s what I think can change our lives.

Pete Mockaitis
And I’m curious, do you have any rough numbers for starters that you like to hang your hat on or base level assumptions? Because, for example, when I’m considering a business initiative, it’s like, “I have no idea if this thing is going to work out.” It’s like, “But it seems like a good idea to me.” But historically, you know, the slight majority of “seems like a good idea to me” things did not work.

So, my base level assumption is like, “There’s a 30% chance that this thing will work out.” And then I like to see, “Okay, well, given that,” this is why I think you and I are simpatico. It’s like, “Well, given that, is it worth the time and money to embark upon this risky path, knowing there’s a less than one in three chance it’s going to work out?” And it’s like, “Well, heck, yes, it is because the upside is so substantial within. Well, then game on, let’s do it.”

So, I found that quite helpful, it’s just like put that in a spreadsheet and mapping it out. So, 30%, it’s a little bit arbitrary, a little bit made up, but it’s kind of based on my own experience, so there’s more than nothing in terms of the evidence supporting it. So, do you have any rules of thumb, guidelines, numbers that find their way into your estimates often?

Kyle Austin Young
Sure. I’m not a financial advisor. I can’t give investing advice, but I can say that I tend to be more risk averse than most people do. I hate losing money. I just almost can’t stand it. So, I want to be pretty confident that a goal is going to be successful.

And how do I get a sense of that? Well, I create a success diagram and I try to look for gaps in my thinking. I, then, again, have a context for asking for advice. I can go to people who know more than I do and say, “Are there bad outcomes I’m not considering or bad outcomes that I’m not taking seriously enough? Is there a more straightforward path to what I want?”

The thing that I find encouragement in. There are two things, actually. One is, you mentioned earlier that this isn’t really intended to just be a step-by-step framework, that that’s part of it, but it’s really a way of thinking and a suite of tools that we can use situationally.

Sometimes we might want to leverage the power of multiple attempts. Other times we might want to create a success diagram and try to do everything we can to minimize the risk of potential bad outcomes. We can do that in real time at every step in the process.

So even if we need to pivot, even if we think we need department manager A’s approval, it turns out we’re going to need department manager B’s approval. Great. What are the reasons that that person might reject what we’re, ultimately, offering?

So, there’s an opportunity to do this work as we go and improve our odds. And the knowledge that I have the ability to do that is one of the things that gives me confidence that even when uncertainty arises, even when unexpected speed bumps get in my way, I know how to change my odds, and that’s something that I find encouraging.

The other thing, though, is I encourage people not to think of our goals necessarily as pass/fail. Even if we don’t accomplish the original outcome, we can sometimes accumulate assets and resources that can be repurposed.

In the book, I tell the story of this group of friends who, I believe they just left jobs at PayPal when they don’t, I’m pretty sure it was PayPal. I’m not 100% positive. They decided to start this new dating website at a time when the internet was much younger or much newer, and it was difficult to upload content to the internet. It just wasn’t something that many people had the tools or the skills to do.

And one of the ways this dating site planned to differentiate itself was it was going to make it really easy for people to upload a video introducing themselves, and then put themselves in a position to meet people who might want to go on a date with them. And that was a pretty clever differentiator at that time.

The challenge was they just couldn’t get people to do it. It was a time when it was a new tool, privacy concerns were a little different back then, the idea that I was going to upload a video of myself to the internet for strangers to watch to consider whether or not they wanted to go on a date with me, that sounded crazy. Now we put content of ourselves online all the time, but that was a concern.

So, ultimately, this dating website fails. But this group of entrepreneurs didn’t give up on the idea. They instead stopped and asked the question, “What assets and resources have we accumulated through the work that we’ve already done?” And one of the biggest things was they’d use their programming skills to develop this incredible tool for uploading videos to the internet, something that was really difficult to do at the time.

So, they pivoted a little bit to a new goal, which was, “What if we started a website where anyone could upload videos about anything they wanted to?” And they call it YouTube. They end up selling it for one and a half billion dollars, and it becomes this thing that changes their lives. And so, you asked the question, “At what number is something a go for me?”

Well, I’m more risk averse than most people are, but I know I can change my odds over time. And I also don’t necessarily view failure the exact same way, because I know of a failed dating site that made over a billion dollars.

And so, I think there’s typically opportunities when we have a success diagram to be able to collect, or rather remember and process, “Here’s all of the resources that we’ve been able to get our hands on as a result of the work we’ve done.” We’re not finishing where we started, even if we’re not finishing where we wanted to.

Pete Mockaitis
So good. Well, so, Kyle, we’ve said the words success diagram a few times here. Can you tell me, literally, pen to paper, what does my success diagram look like?

Kyle Austin Young
Your success diagram starts with the goal you want to accomplish. That’ll go on the right side of the page. And then you will make a list leading up to it of the steps that are going to have to be achieved in order to accomplish it or the things that have to go right. Sometimes it’s not linear per se. Sometimes it’s just, you know, the ingredients in success, like in that training for a marathon example.

It’s not that we’re going to eat a certain way, and then we’re going to sleep a certain way, and then we’re going to train a certain way. In reality, it’s that we’re going to be doing three things simultaneously that we’ve been told can lead to success. So, there is a template.

This will get better over time, but I wanted to give people something because it’s a question I get a lot. If you go to SuccessDiagram.com, there’s a free template that you can just print. You don’t have to buy my book or anything like that. You don’t even have to give your email address. It just makes it really easy for you to fill in, “Here are some of the critical points on the path to my goal. Here are some of the things that might go wrong.” So, that’s something you could certainly take a look at. It’ll be helpful for you.

I know that podcasting, you know, it’s a little bit tricky with an audio discipline to paint a word picture for you, but I typically draw a circle for everything that has to go right. I write the thing in the center of the circle, one at a time, goals at the end of the list, and then beneath each thing that has to go right, I just make a list of the potential bad outcomes that could ultimately sabotage my success.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Well, Kyle, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about a few of your favorite things?

Kyle Austin Young
I want to talk about my favorite things.

Pete Mockaitis

All right, let’s do it. Can you start with a favorite quote?

Kyle Austin Young
You know, one of the real privileges of writing this book was I got the opportunity to interview Jack O’Callahan who played for the U.S. Men’s Olympic Hockey Team in 1980 during the “Miracle on Ice” when the United States beat the Soviet Union, this very unlikely victory.

He has this, I wouldn’t call it a quote, they used it as a quote in the movie version, but he says that he doesn’t remember exactly what was said by his coach Herb Brooks in the locker room before the game.

But he says he remembers leaving the locker room to take the ice with the impression that what his coach had said was, or tried to communicate, was, “If we played these guys 10 times, they would probably beat us nine times, but they aren’t going to beat us tonight.”

And that’s a quote that means a lot to me, because it acknowledges that we often are up against goals where our odds aren’t very good, but through the power, in my opinion, of multiple attempts, we have the opportunity to persist, achieve success, and then dramatically change our odds on subsequent pursuits.

And if we go into each one of those, recognizing that we’re going to fail maybe even more than we succeed, depending on how audacious the goals we’re pursuing are, but this mindset, “They’re not going to beat us tonight, that we’re going to do everything we can to make this the time that we ultimately find success,” I think we put ourselves in a powerful position.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Kyle Austin Young
I’ve already mentioned this one, but I think that one of my favorites is just the story of Thomas Edison because what I love about his story is a lot of people have this idea of kind of decision overwhelm, that, “If there’s too many options, we’re going to be paralyzed and we won’t know what to do.” I can understand why people would feel that way.

What I think the opportunity is when we’re making decisions like that is we just need to find a standard to measure the ideas against. And in his case, it was just, “Which one of these filaments glows the longest without burning out or without catching on fire?” And that allowed him to sift through 6,000 different ideas, and it wasn’t overwhelming. He just had a stopwatch. It’s just, “Which one of these accomplishes the goal?”

And so, I think a lot of people who are struggling to weigh their options and make a decision that they’re proud of are doing that because they haven’t really defined what success looks like. If we know what success actually looks like, we can hold our ideas up against it, and, all of sudden, it becomes a lot easier, in my opinion, to identify the one that makes the most sense in our context.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Kyle Austin Young
I’ll tell you book that I think pairs really well with mine. It’s a book by a friend and colleague, Dr. Ron Friedman, it’s called Decoding Greatness, and he takes the idea of reverse engineering and brings a framework to it. It’s basically, “How can you take great work, completed by other people, and use it to improve your own performance?”

And I think it’s a really nice pairing with my book because, ultimately, if you have a framework for learning how to do things that comes from studying others, and then you have a framework for improving your odds of success, then I think you’re in a pretty strong position.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Kyle Austin Young
A favorite habit for me is thinking negative. I’m sorry to be an Eeyore, but I think that the idea that positive thinking is an antidote to risk just doesn’t make any sense, the idea that I can somehow wish something into existence. I think there’s tremendous value in focusing on what we want.

I think there’s tremendous value in that sense of kind of manifesting what our intentions are because when we’re really clear on what the goal is, it helps us sort through the information that we experience in life. We know who to talk to at a networking event. We know which news headlines to pay attention to and which might not be relevant to us. So, I totally value and appreciate the level of focus that I think is implied there.

But for me, tell me how if I’m training for a marathon, positive thinking is going to keep it from raining on a day when I need to run, to tell me how wanting to run a marathon is going to prevent shin splints? It just doesn’t work like that. We have the opportunity to think negative, identify the things that could go wrong, and use our creativity to systematically de-risk our goals.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks, they quote back to you often?

Kyle Austin Young
Probably you don’t have to beat the odds. Well, sometimes you don’t have to beat the odds. You only have to play them. Obviously, there’s goals where that doesn’t apply. I talk about the story of someone trying to graduate from college, and some people have better odds at that than others do.

And it wouldn’t make sense for someone with bad odds to enroll in four different universities and hope that they’ll complete one of the four programs. So, there’s certainly exceptions to that. But in many goals, one of the most reliable ways to overcome bad odds of success is through the power of multiple attempts.

Can I tell one last story very quick?

Pete Mockaitis

Oh, yeah.

Kyle Austin Young
In the book, I talk about Ben and Jerry’s. Ben and Jerry’s was this upstart organization that wanted to enter into the really crowded industry of ice cream sales. And at that time, and also today, the best-selling ice cream flavor in the world is vanilla. It’s really hard to make a vanilla ice cream that’s so much better than everyone else’s that they leave their favorite ice cream brand and come over to your company, right?

So, they decided to do something different. They said, “We’re going to try to make exotic new flavors that no one’s ever heard of before. And it’ll be so provocative that people will say, ‘Well, I’ve got to try that.’ And if they like it, we’ll be the only place they can get it because no one else has these crazy flavors that we’re dreaming up.”

But that’s an unreliable strategy, at least in the context of one attempt. It’s hard to guess what bizarre ice cream flavor enough people are going to like and want to actually try. So, what they did is they entered into a model where they knew that failure was going to be a big part of it, and they resolved to celebrate those failures.

And so, if you ever go to the Ben & Jerry’s factory in Waterbury, Vermont, I’ve been personally, outside, they have what they call the flavor graveyard, and it has actual headstones with these little funny epitaphs for failed ice cream flavors that they’ve had over the years. They have over 300 discontinued flavors of ice cream.

But recognizing that that was going to be part of the game is what allowed them to, ultimately, uncover classics that made them the best-selling ice cream brand in America for many years.

Pete Mockaitis
And, Kyle, if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Kyle Austin Young
If you want to grab a copy of the book, you can do that pretty much anywhere – Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, directly on the Penguin Random House website. If you want to learn more about me, you can go to my website, KyleAustinYoung.com.

But if you want to connect, then find me on LinkedIn. That’s been one of the fun surprises about this journey is, at first, I wasn’t asking for that specifically, but people would find me on LinkedIn after some of these interviews and reach out. And it’s been a lot of fun to have those conversations. So now I’m just trying to shorten the path to that. If you have any questions, send me a message.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Kyle Austin Young
I would encourage you to try to create one success diagram for a goal. I would encourage you to try to see what it looks like. You’re not going to have all the facts, and, in some cases, that means you won’t want to rely on predictions that would come out of it, but you’re now going to have a tool that allows you to collect information, add it over time.

And when you create diagrams for various goals that you’re considering, you can start to make decisions around which one makes the most sense in your context. In so many cases, when people are trying to prioritize a goal, they’ll sometimes ask the question, “Which one aligns most with my values?” or, “Which one sounds like the most fun?” or, “Which one do I think will bring other opportunities within reach?” All those are great questions.

But if we aren’t stopping to also consider our odds of success, then why does it matter how much alignment there is if the goal’s almost certainly going to fail? I think that we need probability to have a seat at the table. Certainly, there’s goals like curing cancer, where even when the odds are bad, we need to keep trying to do it.

But in the context of our careers, I don’t see any reason to invite that level of risk. Let’s find the goals that are most likely to have a good outcome and then ask questions like, “Where is there the most alignment?”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Kyle, thank you.

Kyle Austin Young
Thank you.

1102: How to be “Lucky” by Hacking Hidden Markets to Get More What You Want with Judd Kessler

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Judd Kessler discusses how to navigate the hidden markets that decide how scarce resources—like time and attention—get distributed.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why some people seem to score more coveted resources
  2. The counterintuitive advantages of settling
  3. An easy way to become the more appealing candidate

About Judd

Judd B. Kessler is the author of LUCKY BY DESIGN: The Hidden Economics You Need  to Get More of What You Want and the inaugural Howard Marks Endowed Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. For his work on the hidden market of organ allocation, Kessler was named one of the “30 under 30” in Law and Policy by Forbes. He is an award-winning teacher as well as a sought-after speaker.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

  • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome
  • Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO
  • Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome
  • Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.

Judd Kessler Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Judd, welcome!

Judd Kessler
Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to talk about this stuff. This is a concept I don’t think people even know exists. Can you share with us what is a hidden market and why should professionals care about them?

Judd Kessler
Great question, my favorite question, because I’ve been thinking about hidden markets for a long time. So let me tell you what I think of as a visible market, the kind of markets we’re used to, and that’ll help us think about what a hidden market is. So visible markets allocate things by prices changing. And they’re easy to do business with, and we’re used to them. If you want something at a store, you go, you see what the price is, you decide whether to buy it. If it’s worth the price, you buy it, and if not, you don’t.

And this is how economists often think about markets. We think that prices move around to decide who gets what. But that’s not how all markets work. A lot of markets don’t have prices that decide who gets what. There’s a lot of people who want something and either the price is too low, so there’s more people who want it at that price than we have things to give. Or we don’t have a price at all. There’s lots of markets where we decide we don’t want to let kind of the richest buy access to the thing.

And in that second case, we have what I call a hidden market, where there’s something that decides who gets what, it’s just not prices. And so, you have to understand what it is that’s allocating the scarce resource.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. That’s as fun, brain expanding. Can you give us an example of how this might apply in the professional world?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, it’s much easier with examples. I give you the theory bit first, but the examples are lots of products that you purchase have prices that are kind of too low from the standard economics, kind of sense of what prices are supposed to do.

So, if you want live event tickets or you want a restaurant reservation at a kind of popular place, in these cases, there are more people who want the thing than they have available to serve. And for a variety of reasons, the artists that are having that concert decide that they don’t want the price to just rise until only the rich can afford to go.

Pete Mockaitis
You know, I was going to ask, is that why? Because I’m thinking, if these Taylor Swift tickets or whatever sell like within seconds of them opening up, like, my immediate thought is, “Well, shouldn’t they just increase the price?” So, is the artists or others making the request to keep it at a lower rate?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and people debate about why they do this. So, one argument is, well, think about the restaurant first. That, I think, is a little easier for us to think about. Like, the restaurant might like a line around the block or stories about how hard it is to get a table. They might think that kind of keeping prices low enough that they’re getting a lot of people who want to eat there, and that’s kind of creating its own buzz, is going to be helpful to be able to fill the restaurant for months and years.

I don’t think Taylor Swift needs to do that. Like, I don’t think she needs more buzz, but she might have different reasons to keep the price low because she has a bunch of fans, and if she were to set kind of market-clearing prices, prices where only one person wants to buy the ticket for each seat, then those prices would have to be very high and that would make it untenable for a lot of her fans to actually be able to afford tickets.

And as a billionaire, it might not be a good look to be charging $1,000 for a ticket. She’d much rather charge $99. But, of course, then it creates a frenzy for getting the tickets and a hidden market that pops up to decide who gets the tickets and who doesn’t.

Pete Mockaitis
It’s probably less fun, I’m imagining as well, as a performer if it’s like everyone in the seats is a multimillionaire. It’s like, “Okay, the vibe in here is not as enjoyable.”

Judd Kessler
No, and that is an absolute issue that, you know, kind of we think about in lots of different markets. So, it’s not just concerts, right? If you think about a baseball fan who sits in the cheap seats all season, and then the World Series comes along and prices are much higher, right, well, that fan might be the one who’s going to enjoy the seat the most and also kind of bring the most excitement to the stadium.

But if you price that fan out and you sell the ticket to somebody who’s never been to a game, but wants to say they’ve been to the World Series, that might not be a good use of that resource, and it might be less fun to kind of be in the stadium on that day. And the same thing is true in hidden market. I mean, there’s lots of hidden markets. I’ll give you a million examples, I’m sure, during the conversation.

But we also don’t, at Wharton where I teach, we don’t just raise tuition until only we can fill the class with just people willing to pay a very high price. That would not be a cohort of students that we would kind of think are the best fit for our school. We have different market rules, a hidden market that decides, “Okay, who is going to get admitted to our program this year?” And we don’t base it on price because we care about who actually is filling the seats in our classrooms, just like the artists might care about who’s filling the seats of the stadium.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Okay. So, there’s our concept. And your book, Lucky by Design: The Hidden Economics You Need to Get More of What You Want, you suggest that there are things that we can do to have more luck, to be the ones who are in the seats more often.

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so there’s lots of different examples in the book of these hidden markets. Basically, any time there are more people who want something than we have goods or services available to give to everybody. And so, what we need to do as market participants, as people who want those things, that scarce resources, we have to see that the hidden market is there. We have to be able to kind of see through the hidden nature of it and identify it.

Then we have to learn what the rules are. And that’s kind of a key thing, because there’s lots of different rules that determine who gets what in these markets. And the rules differ by which market you’re in. But then once we see the hidden market and understand the rules, then we can develop a strategy that actually lets us succeed.

Then we can figure out, “What is it that I have to do in this market to actually get what I want?” And that’s what I mean when I say getting lucky by design. It’s kind of you’re figuring out the hidden market, its rules, and how to play in it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so in the case of concert tickets, it seems, as far as I understand, maybe you got some inside scoop, Judd, a music fan, it seems the name of the game is, get on your computer, poised and ready to go, the second tickets become available.

Judd Kessler
This is what we call a first come, first serve race. So, we’re familiar with first come, first serve, but this is a race. It’s whoever clicks the fastest, gets the thing. And this is a very common type of market rule. So, it’s for the tickets for a lot of shows and sporting events. It also happens for restaurant reservations. If all the reservations for next month are released at the same point in time this month, you have to be there ready to click.

And, there, one key strategy, obviously, is, like, you have to know that this is a race and then you have to be ready to go on your highest speed internet, with your finger on your mouse.

Because a lot of times you’ll be playing in a hidden market, not realizing that the market is there, you’ll show up to make a reservation or to buy a ticket, only to find out that everything is taken. And it was taken weeks ago when the race started and you happen to not know that the race was on, you’ll miss it entirely.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, it’s funny, it sounds so simple, but you say, you have to see that there’s a hidden market there. You need to know the rules and then you need to develop a strategy to do so. That seems, in some ways, very, “But of course,” and yet I think that we overlook a lot of these things, like, “Hey, I want a lot of stuff. And it seems like I keep missing out.”

Judd Kessler

Yeah, “How did that person get that reservation? How did that person get the tickets? How were they able to do it? I showed up to Ticketmaster an hour after the tickets were released, and everything was gone.” It’s like, well, it turns out an hour is too long a period. You have to be there the minute it opens. And that might not be obvious to folks. But even if it is obvious, there’s other ways, other kind of strategies you should be thinking through when you’re running in these first come, first serve races.

Pete Mockaitis
Ooh, tell us, Judd. What do we do?

Judd Kessler
So, this is a strategy that comes up a lot in a lot of different hidden markets. And it kind of works against our instincts. And so, we have to think about when we should use it. But then we could potentially use it successfully. And I call it settling for silver. So, silver as in silver metal, as opposed to going for gold. So going for gold, being going after the thing that you want more than anything that kind of is, the most desirable option for you.

So, imagine, I tell the story in the book, I’m trying to get my wife a reservation at a very difficult to get reservation restaurant called The French Laundry in Napa Valley. They have only 60 seats. It has three Michelin stars. It’s also crazy expensive, but it was her 40th birthday. So, it was like, “All right, let’s give it a shot.”

They release all of the reservations for a given month on the first of the preceding month. So, at 10:00 a.m. you have to be there, ready to click. And in that situation, I might decide I want to go for gold. I might decide that I want to get the absolute best reservation that I can, the thing that I think my wife would want the most, maybe 7:30 p.m. on Saturday night.

The problem with that strategy is that a lot of people want to eat dinner at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday. It’s a very desirable time. And so, if I go for that, if I go for the thing that I really want, then I’m facing a lot of competition. There’s a lot of people that are trying to click at the same time as me.

It also turns out, this is very true in the live event space, also now more so in the restaurant space as well, there are also bots and, like, computerized programs competing against me to get those so that they can secure them and then sell them to me later at a higher price, if I’m unlucky.

But while I’m kind of going for gold, there are other people who are settling for silver, who are saying, “Look, I would love to eat at 7:30, but maybe that’s too aggressive a strategy. Why don’t I try for something less desirable? What if I try for a 5:00 p.m. reservation or 4:30 reservation? There’s going to be a lot fewer people racing for that. And if I go for that, I’m substantially, more likely to get it.”

And so, you, as a participant in this market, you have to think like, “All right, do I really want to go to the restaurant and I kind of care less about exactly when I go? I prefer 7:30 to 4:30, but it’s not that big a difference. Like, the key thing is getting to eat there.” If that’s the case, maybe settling for silver, even though it kind of feels tough because you’re settling, it’s right there in the name, maybe that’s a better strategy.

If you absolutely want to go at 7:30, you only want it if it’s the best, you know, the ideal thing for you, then you go for gold, but you kind of deal with the fact that you’re less likely to get what you want.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. You know what’s funny, this brings me back to, I’m thinking about high school, Model United Nations. And so, the most desirable countries to represent were those who had the permanent five seat veto power on the Security Council.

Judd Kessler
The power. The power in Model UN.

Pete Mockaitis
And we’re just, like, well, “Hey, if we want to be in the Security Council, everybody wants the permanent five seats, so let’s go for some nations that are on the Security Council, but don’t have one of the permanent five seats. In that way, we can get what we want with less competition. And is it such a big deal if we don’t have that veto vote? It’s fine.”

Judd Kessler
And this settle for silver strategy is one that students, you know, time of the year, you’re starting to think about applying to colleges, this is where this strategy might come into play.

So, college admission is another hidden market. And this time, there’s a participant on the other side of the market who’s deciding whether or not to admit you. So, I call these choose me markets, right? Unlike first come, first serve, where whoever clicks fastest gets it, and it’s kind of algorithmically decided who wins the race and who doesn’t.

With choose me markets, the market participant on the other side is trying to kind of suss out whether you’re going to be a good fit for them. It turns out, colleges in the US, they really like when they get high-quality candidates, but they also really like to have high yield. They want a large fraction of the folks who apply and are admitted to matriculate.

So, their concern with yield, their concern with getting people who they admit to matriculate, leads them to like applicants who apply early, and in particular early decision, where you’re basically committing to go if you are admitted. Now what’s the difficulty with early decision as an applicant? You can only apply to one school early decision, because if you get in, you’re committing to go.

And so, the colleges reward you with a higher chance of getting in if you apply early. But this is a case where you, as an applicant, have to decide, “Are you going to go for gold or are going to settle for silver?” Because if your dream school, your actual first choice is, like, really a reach and really unlikely to admit you, even if you apply early decision, then that might be a waste to go for gold. Like, you might use your application, your early application on your ideal place, but it might be that the competition is too stiff.

Go to your second or third choice school, maybe that’s a school that will admit you if you apply early, but might not admit you otherwise. Then, all of a sudden, you’re using your early application kind of effectively, it’s kind of getting you into this second or third choice. Sure, it’s not your dream school, but it might be the more realistic option for you. And that might be the strategy that you want to play in that market.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now let’s not just talk about admissions. Let’s talk about career, job-hunting stuff. These principles sure seem to apply. We have one role opening available and hundreds of candidates applying on LinkedIn jobs, etc. So how shall we think about this hidden market strategery to boost our odds?

Judd Kessler
Yeah. So, again, this is a choose me market. There’s you as the applicant applying, maybe there’s 250 applicants applying to the same job posting. I’ve seen those numbers as estimates for how many people apply on average to a given job. And there’s a firm on the other side that’s trying to screen through those job applications.

So, I think from us as the applicant, on the applicant side, I think the traditional thing to think about is making sure that we look good as a candidate. We want to kind of make it so that the firm finds us very appealing. And one of the ways we do that is by kind of making, you know, being great and investing in skills and things like that.

What we often don’t think as much about is kind of the firm’s thoughts about us and our interest in that job relative to other options. So, in a lot of these choose me markets, just like the college wants to know that you will matriculate if you are admitted, like they kind of care about yield, firms care a lot about it for a different reason.

They want to hire folks who will stay with the firm for a while, “If I’m going to hire you, if I’m going to train you, I’m going to invest in you, I’m to plug you into my team, I want to make sure that you’re actually going to be a good investment and be with the firm for a while.” And so, one thing that we don’t think about as much, or maybe as much as we should, is, “Are we communicating to the firm that they are actually, like, are one of our top choices?”

And we would not only be happy to accept a job, right? Obviously, we’re applying, so we would think you would apply only to jobs you would take, but also that we’re likely to be there for a while and add a lot of value to the firm. And the way we used to send those signals, and maybe in some markets we still can, is through things like long, detailed cover letters, right?

So, the reason we have so many people applying to every job posting is it’s so easy to apply. You press a button and your application goes. But to signal that this is actually, like, one of your favorite job opportunities and, thus, probably a job that you would stick with if you were given the opportunity, those jobs we give extra attention to.

We write kind of long, detailed cover letters that explain why we would be a good fit for the firm, how we see our background fitting in and adding value, and we’ve researched the firm, and so it’s clear that we care. And in the old days, you would only do that for, you know, it takes a bunch of hours to write that cover letter, and you would only do it if the job was really one of the few that appealed to you.

The reason I say it’s kind of something that used to work, and might not work for all that long anymore, is that large language models are making writing that cover letter kind of vanishingly easy. And so, that way that we used to signal to firms that we were a good fit for them, that we were really excited to be there, it’s kind of, it’s not going to be something we can rely on forever.

Pete Mockaitis
Just very recently, I had a podcast guest, Madeline Mann, who’s discussing some of these ideas. And one alternative signal is, if your LinkedIn profile headline is matching the kind of role that they’re thereafter. So, if you say “food marketing” and, sure enough, it’s a food marketing role, “Well, that looks good.” Like, you are for real. You’re into this. As opposed to just any kind of marketing or any kind of food.

Judd Kessler
And that’s great because that’s the kind of signal that you can’t send to multiple different firms about different roles, right? You have to pick one and it’s a public statement that you’re making to kind of everybody that, “This is the thing that I care about.”

There’s a tradeoff there because it could be kind of limiting. Like, maybe you do have multiple interests, not just food marketing, but marketing of other products, other consumer packaged goods, for example, then you are kind of, you might want to have signals that you can send to a subset of firms.

And those might be things, like on LinkedIn, kind of engaging in a real way with folks that are already at the firm, kind of engaging with their content and making comments. It could be networking.

There’s a way there to signal that, “This is a firm that I care about. I clearly have talked to a bunch of people that work there and gotten to know the place,” in a way that can’t be replicated with AI.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, and in terms of knowing the rules, I mean, that can be so wildly different, job post to job post. Some job posts, unfortunately, aren’t even really available to outsiders. That’s just a formality. They got to check the box, the legal, the HR, the whatever, compliancy thing. So, there’s that.

Or other times, it’s like, “Well, we’re going to do this just in case someone just blows our mind with a wildly awesome resume, but most likely it’s probably going to be someone that we’ve talked to at some point earlier in the process and we’re vibing with.”

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and it’s funny, when you think about how much energy to put into a job application, say, or networking with the firm, then it’s you on the other side of that. You want to know that the firm is actually serious about hiring somebody before you invest. And that’s the analog to the firm wanting to know that you’ll stick with it if you get hired. It’s the same problem, just from the other side.

So, I think probably seeing if the job posting is being advertised widely by the firm, they don’t do that when they’re posting the job just for a legal requirement, just to like kind of say they did it. But if you’re starting to see them kind of posting, or people that work there being like, “Hey, we’re looking to fill this role. Great people, come apply,” all of a sudden, that’s a signal to you, like, “Oh, maybe they actually are looking for somebody. Maybe the person they met early in the process turned out to take another job, and now it’s up for grabs.”

But again, in that environment, you’re on the side where you have to decide how real is this job opportunity. So, I can understand why people play a numbers game applying to lots of jobs. You want a job, but a successful kind of efficient outcome, in the econ speak, efficient way of kind of that market resolving is when a firm finds somebody that’s going to be a good fit. And that means both they like the candidate and the candidate likes the job.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, let’s say we’re zooming into, okay, you’re in a job right here, right now, and you would like to have cool projects, cool opportunities, advance, receive promotions, etc., are there any hidden market principles or strategies that you’d surface for us here?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so I love that because if you start to think about what a hidden market is, it’s when there’s a scarce resource, “We’re not going to just raise the price to decide who gets it. We’re going to have some other set of rules.” Well, that describes our time and attention very well.

We have a limited amount of it. We’re not going to have people pay us to respond to their emails or take a meeting. Maybe some consultants or corporate lawyers might do that. But for the rest of us, we are deciding how to allocate our scarce resources to the projects and the people and the activities that matter most to us. And so, thinking about the same principles of, “What is this market trying to achieve? And is it doing it? And is it doing it in a way that we kind of value?”

So, when I look at a hidden market, and particularly as a market designer, kind of deciding how to allocate my resources and in this case, my time in my email inbox or the time on my schedule or kind of which projects I focus on, I think about whether the allocation is efficient, meaning it puts my resources to the best use. I think about whether it’s equitable.

Like, if I want to treat two people kind of fairly, the same, am I actually doing that? If I have two managers, and I want to make sure that, kind of, both are happy with me, like am I doling out my resources appropriately?

And then is it easy for market participants? Are the people who are trying to get my time and attention, like am I making them go through an ordeal to get it? Do people, do my subordinates have to send me 12 follow-up emails to get me to respond? Like, that’s not an easy way to operate.

And so those same principles can help us kind of think about, “All right, are we designing this in a way, our own allocation of time and attention, in a way that actually achieves our goals?”

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, that gets me thinking. And so, do you have any fun examples or stories of any clever professionals who were doing some things?

Judd Kessler
Yeah. So, this was something that I came to when I was doing research for the book. So, it’s going to start out outside the office, but I’ll bring it in. So, the Colorado River runs through the American Southwest and delivers water to California and a lot of the states in the Southwest, into Mexico. And the way that the rights to the water in the river were allocated was using a hidden market with the market rules, “First in time, first in right.”

And what the rules were was that whoever was the first to tap the water from the river to kind of pull it out of the river for their use, it turned out to be California in 1901. They pulled it out to irrigate their farmland and they’ve been using it ever since. And the rules were, whoever tapped the river first, if there was a drought, that state got their water rights kind of guaranteed.

And the states that tapped it later, like, think Arizona, their rights were subordinate. So, if there was a drought, California would still get their water, but Arizona would not. And you think about that and you think about, this was a race that was run 120 years ago. And at that time, Phoenix, Arizona was less than 10,000 people and now it’s almost 2 million, so it doesn’t seem like, like those rules don’t make sense, “Why should we give California all the water that they want and Arizona has to cut back? Should we care about how efficient the water use is and whether the allocation is fair?”

And I was reading about this, and I was like, “Yeah, this is so silly. Why would anyone have these rules?” And then I looked at my calendar for the week, and I was like, “I’m doing this constantly. Every recurring meeting that I’ve set up is first in time, first in right. A year ago, I started this project. I set up a meeting. Once a week on Thursday, 10:00 a.m., we’re going to meet every Thursday. And now I schedule a meeting for a new project.”

I have to squeeze it between these meetings I set up months or years ago for projects that, independent of how valuable that hour of my time is, I’ve kind of set up a system that looks like the system I was making fun of when I was reading about it.

And so, that for me has got, I basically pulled off all my recurring meetings. My teaching, obviously, sacrosanct, I teach when I teach, but any kind of project, it’s like, “We’re going to decide case by case whether we should be meeting or not.”

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, that is compelling, to look at those recurring meetings and see, “Is that sensible?” And it’s funny how we just accept, “Well, this is what the calendar says.” It’s like, “Well, wait. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I actually have some authority, autonomy, in driving this thing here and saying, ‘Hey, like I recently changed my recurring podcast meeting times to facilitate school pickups.’”

It took me weeks before I was like, “Oh, yeah, it’s kind of tricky. I mean, I got podcast interviews there.” It’s like, “Oh, I could just change the slots available for people to take for their interviews.”

Judd Kessler

This is like so much, so many of the hidden markets that are out there, and that I talk about and saw when I was researching the book. Like, a lot of them are just historical accident, like, “We always did it this way, and so we continue to do it this way.” So, it’s true of, when you put a meeting on your calendar that recurs, it’s kind of set it and forget it, and you have to remind yourself, “No, it is under my control,” as you just said.

But we talked at the beginning about live event tickets and having to click faster than everybody else. It is not clear to me why we use first come, first serve races for ticketing. Like, I understand why when, before credit cards and before the internet, like it made sense to say, “All right, people have to be there physically to buy tickets from the box office or buy tickets from a record store that would sometimes sell them for concerts.”

And you want it to be efficient so you want people who care more to get the ticket. So, what are we going to do? We’re going to have a line and the people who wait the longest, like they’re clearly the most kind of motivated. Now there’s some efficiency gains there, in the sense of like you’re giving the tickets to the real diehard fans because they’re spending the night, you know, overnight, camped out in front of the Box Office.

It might not be equitable. There are some people who don’t feel safe sleeping on the street in front of Box Office or a record store. And it’s not easy. I mean, it’s an ordeal to spend the night there, but you could understand why you would do it that way. You move it to the internet and now it’s whoever can program the fastest bots gets to buy up the tickets.

And it’s like, “Why are we still doing first come, first serve?” Like, when you look at these markets and the market rules, and you think, “Oh, well, of course we do first come, first serve. That’s how we’ve always done it.” But maybe that’s not the right way to do it anymore.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, absolutely. Well, you got me thinking in terms of there is…well, that’s a fun title you have – market designers. I was like, “What exactly does that mean? Oh, that’s what this means. Thank you.” There are so many ways that can achieve the outcomes that you’re after, it’s like, “Yeah, we want the diehard fans.” And so, it could be very well, especially with all this technology, it’s like, “Okay, well, if you’re on the email list, how long you’ve been on that email list? How often?”

Because, I mean, my own email software will tell me who are my most engaged email subscribers, in terms of opens and clicks, and how long they’ve been around and they’ll even, like, put some numbers on it. So, it was, like, you could very well roll that out in terms of the super-engaged email subscribers are the ones who get the first crack at being able to buy these tickets.

Judd Kessler
And there are innovations in that direction. Like, the Ticketmaster has something called “Verified Fan.” I think it’s more about, like, trying to figure out who’s a bot and who’s a real person. But you can, and they have kind of built-in, like, “Okay, do you stream Taylor’s videos? And are there ways to kind of indicate that you are more engaged?”

But another way that I like, and I talk about in the book, is how about just flexibility in when you will see the show and where you will sit? So, if you asked me how to allocate tickets to The Eras Tour, I would say, “Well, what if we just did, like, kind of lottery section by section? And you could say, ‘I will sit in any section of any stadium within these four cities on any night.’”

That person will have a higher chance of winning than somebody who’s like, “I only want to sit in the premium seats on the Saturday performance in my hometown.” And that is a way of indicating that you are a real fan of basically being, ultimately, flexible to move around the rest of your schedule. And so, kind of a lottery structure, which gets used for kind of rush tickets and in other contexts.

That strikes me as a nice way of saying, “These are the people who really value it because they are basically entering themselves in for every possible chance to get to see this artist perform live.”

Pete Mockaitis
And it also has me thinking about the movie “War Games,” where the computer says something like an interesting game, the optimal choice is not to play. And sometimes, as you really think through these hidden markets, and you understand the rules and how they work and what you have to gain or lose by participating, you may make smarter choices, like, “Oh, it’s not worth playing this game at all. Maybe I need to try to invent my own game over here. I got to invent a different opportunity to accomplish what I’m after, rather than entering the meat grinder mosh pit over here.”

Judd Kessler
No, and people do that. They look at markets and they think about, “How difficult will it be to be a market participant? And what is the chance that I get what I want?” And when you look at that, when you see the hidden market, you understand the market rules, and you think about what strategy you’d play, you might decide, “You know what? I’d rather not.”

There’s a great ice cream parlor about 10 blocks from my apartment, and on some Sundays, they give away free sundaes at 3:00 p.m. And my kids are like, “Oh, it would be great if we get a free sundae.” And it’s like, “Yeah, but I think it’s going to be crazy when we get like, we’re either going to have to arrive super early or there’s going to be shoving matches.”

And it’s, like, even if the whole family goes and we get five free sundaes, like, it’s probably not worth it. We’ll pay full bore for the sundaes some other time, right? But we have to decide in these situations, like, “Is this a market that is really worth it for us to be in?” Or should we be trying to go to a different restaurant, go to a different live event, wait until there’s less demand for this kind of very popular show and go see it later?

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, Judd, tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention for professionals looking to be awesome at their job, thinking hidden markets and being more effective?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, I mean, there’s other examples in the book that are kind of about not just how we allocate time and attention, but how we allocate other resources within the firm, like financial resources or kind of budgets that you might be in charge of allocating. And it’s the same kind of logic of thinking through “What are the incentives you’re creating for people on the other side of the market?”

So, I teach in one of my classes for executives in the executive MBA program at Wharton, about American Airlines had their AAirpass, and other airlines had similar products where they basically sold unlimited first-class tickets. Like, you could buy a pass that basically gave you as many first-class ticket flights as you wanted for as long as the pass holder lived.

And it was a strategy in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s to get a bunch of cash early when the airlines needed it. But it turned out that when you set the price of an airline trip to be free, but it’s very costly for you to provide that because it’s crowding out a paying customer, then, all of a sudden, you are kind of creating this incentive for folks to fly constantly.

Many of them are still alive and they cost the airlines millions of dollars a year. And it might not be a smart move for you to offer kind of membership style services where you give a lot of benefits away for free that kind of continually costs you. And it kind of speaks more broadly.

Like, if you’re in charge of budgets, like use it or lose it budgeting where you give folks money, and you say, “If you don’t use it, we’re going to take it back. Or, worse, if you don’t use it, we’re going to take it back and give you less next year.” Like, you’re creating the same kind of incentives of people to just, you know, at the end of the year, be like, “Oh, we haven’t spent this all. Let’s go on a spending spree.”

Pete Mockaitis
“All right, 50 iPads. I guess we’ll buy them.”

Judd Kessler
“Yeah, that’s what we need.” And research shows, like when the government does this, and they evaluate the projects that get bought at the end of the fiscal year, they’re bad. They’re not good projects. They’re the groups that have these funds kind of just spending the money so they don’t have to give it back to the US Treasury.

Pete Mockaitis
And really thinking about the market participants and their incentives can really help cut through a lot of the noise. And I’m looking at on my bookshelf, I got Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics,” in which he says that, “We really shouldn’t evaluate policies based on their intentions because most of them are great. But we should really think about what are the incentives that are creating and, thus, the likely behaviors.”

And it’s funny, as I think about some digital marketing type stuff, and people really stress the algorithm, it’s like, “Ooh, how can I get to the top spot of Google or the recommended videos in YouTube?” And so, they think about all these things, “Well, there’s my keyword density, and there’s my thumbnail, and there’s my, compelling clickbait-y title,” whatever.

But often, it actually could get pretty simple. It’s like, “Well, what Google wants people to do is keep Googling. So, if you want to be in the top spot, ideally, you will just phenomenally address the question that people are Googling. Or, what YouTube wants people to do is keep sticking around YouTube and being served ads.”

So, ideally, if you could be so engaging and captivating that they watch your whole video and then want to watch more of your videos, then you’re doing just what YouTube wants and they’ll automatically get the memo and try and shove you in places. And so, I find that this approach of just thinking from the higher-level principles, the participants and their incentives, can cut through a lot of noise to get you after. What do we really got to focus in on here?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, and a lot of times, I mean, I think we’re trained to do this, to think that kind of we have to outsmart the system, that, “Oh, we have to kind of play a strategy that’s too clever by a half.” And it’s like, “No, sometimes you don’t want to do that. Sometimes you want to just deliver high-quality content because that’s what’s going to be the best possible outcome.”

But you’re exactly right, that thinking about the incentives of the people that you’re participating in the market with, whether it is people competing against you or people on the other side of the market who you’re interacting with, is the ball game. I talked about your time and attention, I used to want to be a good professor and I want to be responsive to my students. That’s the intention of the policy.

When students would email me, I would try to respond as quickly as possible. And I realized a lot of the questions they were asking me about were stuff that they could easily find out if they read the syllabus or kind of did the old meme of like, “Let me Google that for you,” where you, speaking about Googling, just like kind of saying, “Hey, this is something you can find out on your own. You don’t have to ask me.”

It made me realize, like, I have to stop responding to these emails because I’m creating more work for them. They have to email me and wait when, really, I should be teaching them to kind of gather the information, get the information on their own. And I’m creating a ton more work for myself because I’m responding to all these emails I don’t need to.

So, if I just kind of lay off and say, “Hey, if you have a question, look at the syllabus. If you ask it to me, you know, I’ll get back to you, but it might take a couple of days.” Like, that has dramatically shut down the number of, kind of unnecessary communication, kind of waste of everybody’s time, and particularly mine, that I’m doing, again, because of this change in the incentives that I set up for people on the other side of the market.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Thank you. Well, now could you share for us a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Judd Kessler
So there’s a quote by Seneca, the Roman philosopher. It’s attributed to him, these old quotes, you never know. “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.”

The other one is one that I worked really hard to make sure was in the book. It’s in a footnote. One of the market rules that I talk about is first come, first serve waiting lists, where you put your name in, you kind of wait. So, I got in this quote from The Simpsons, where Homer comes back from the video store, and Marge, his wife, asked him if he got the movie, and he says, “Well, they put us on the waiting-to-exhale waiting list, but they said, don’t hold your breath.”

I was like, “I’m going to get that in. I’m going to, really. I’m going to do it.” Editor back and forth, but it’s in there. It’s in there, it made it in.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Judd Kessler
Yeah, so there’s a great one that I talk about in the Choose Me Markets chapter. It’s a dating study, and it kind of dovetails really nicely with the labor market studies. A lot of the economics that is happening is the same across those two. But it’s a South Korean dating market, and folks have to pick 10 people that they want to match with and maybe kind of meet in real life.

And the researchers vary whether they have eight or two signals, special kind of, they call them roses that they can send along with their proposals to meet with somebody on the other side of the market. And it’s a really great study that looks at kind of, “What is the effect of these signals? And are people using them correctly?”

And they, typically, do not. Everybody sends their roses to the kind of most attractive people on the other side of the market. But the optimal strategy there is to send them to people who might be surprised to learn that you are interested in them, that you are kind of, they might have thought you were out of their league, and here you are kind of saying, “No, I’m actually really interested in you.” That’s when these roses, that’s when these signals are super effective. I really liked that study.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Judd Kessler
So, I have to say the kind of book that comes before this one, in terms of a pop economics book about market design, is Al Roth’s book, Who Gets What — and Why, which kind of sets the stage for a lot of what I talk about in my book.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool?

Judd Kessler
So, I really like the snooze feature in Google, in Gmail. I used to use Boomerang, a kind of third-party add-on, but this has really helped in me achieving some of my goals. Like, for example, not responding to student emails right away, so I can just snooze it for three days, and then respond. So, I won’t forget to respond if they do need help, but it trains me not to just kind of react to the fact that somebody sent me 12 follow-ups.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And a favorite habit?

Judd Kessler
So, I have gotten in the habit of making sure that I get some time for myself, maybe not every day, but a couple of times a week. So often that’s working out, but sometimes it’s just going for a walk. And in the book, I talk about how important it is to give some of your scarce resources, like your time and attention, to yourself, but I’m trying to live that better. But actually, I find it makes me more productive and more attentive and engaged when I am devoting time to other projects or people.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Judd Kessler

So, I would point them to JuddBKessler.com, B is my middle initial for Benjamin, and that’s my website. They can also go to GetLuckyByDesign.com. It takes them directly to the book page. And they can find me on LinkedIn.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Judd Kessler
I think they should think about the hidden markets that they control, and whether their rules that they have set up for those markets are actually achieving the things that they want them to achieve, or whether they’re kind of, they’re doing what they’ve always been doing and kind of the inertia is holding them back. And I think if they look at these markets with fresh eyes, they might be much happier with the outcomes that get generated.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Judd, thank you.

Judd Kessler
Thanks so much for having me.

1067: Better Decisions through Neuroscience with Emily Falk

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Emily Falk reveals the hidden science behind how we make decisions—and how we can harness that to make more fulfilling choices.

You’ll Learn

  1. How to make doing hard things easier
  2. The one belief that’s limiting your possibilities
  3. How to disarm resistance to change

About Emily

Emily Falk, author of the upcoming book What We Value, is a professor of communication, psychology, and marketing at the University of Pennsylvania and the vice dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, where she directs the Communication Neuroscience Lab and the Climate Communication Division of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. 

Falk is an expert in the science of behavior change. Her award-winning research uses tools from psychology, neuroscience, and communication to examine what makes messages persuasive, why and how ideas spread, and what makes people effective communicators. 

In What We Value, Falk illustrates how we can transform our relationship with the daily decisions that define our lives—opening pathways to make more purposeful, fulfilling choices; more successfully change our behavior; and influence others to see differently—by thinking like neuroscientists.

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Emily Falk Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Emily, welcome!

Emily Falk
Thanks so much for having me, Pete.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, thank you. I’m excited to hear some of your goods. So, then, tell us, with your book, What We Value, what’s the big idea or core message here?

Emily Falk
Well, the big idea in What We Value is that our brains shape what we value, and that happens in ways that we might not realize as they’re unfolding. And my hope is that if people can understand how their brains are calculating value that that has potentially a lot of benefits.

That one possibility is that we can feel more compassion for ourselves and for other people when we make decisions that don’t necessarily make sense to us. That it might also help us make choices a little bit differently or also communicate more effectively with one another.

So, the book is in three parts right there. The first part that explains how this all unfolds in the brain, then there’s a second part that focuses on what we might do if we want to change those kinds of processes, and then the third part focuses on how we connect with other people.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, you discussed the value calculation. What is that? And, ultimately, how are we generally going about making decisions?

Emily Falk
Well, your brain has a set of regions, a system that neuroscientists call the value system, and it takes inputs from lots of other brain regions, and integrates them into a subjective assessment of how rewarding each of any different possible options might be for you. And this kind of unfolds in three phases.

So, in the first phase, your brain identifies what the things are that you’re choosing between. And then in the second part of that, it assigns a subjective value to each of those possible options, which is really weighted towards things that are psychologically close, meaning things that are immediately relevant to you, like rewarding soon.

Geographically close to you, like, stuff that’s happening here in my community, as opposed to, like, across the world in Sudan. And, also, socially close, like, people who are similar to me or people who I know really well, as opposed to people who I think are really different from me or far away.

And in the brain, you can see that these kinds of psychological distance are computed similarly. So, like, future me is similar to a different person. So, in that second phase, your brain assigns a subjective value to how kind of immediately, presently rewarding things are likely to be. And then it connects to other systems that execute the choice.

So, we choose the one that we think can be most rewarding, and then keep track of how it went afterwards, like, “Was that actually as rewarding as I thought it would be?” And if it’s better than you thought it would be, like, let’s say, that you are at work and you sign up for an assignment that you’re willing to do, but it turns out that it’s like way more fun that you thought it would be, it generates what’s called a positive prediction error, and that makes it more likely that we’ll do that thing in the future.

Rather than something that you were really excited about, turns out to be worse than you thought it would be, it generates this negative prediction error, and we learn so that, in the future, it’s going to be an input to future value calculations.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, that’s what’s going on underneath the hood when we’re thinking about, “Do I do a thing?” And so then, if different people choose differently, I guess, what are the primary variables that explain it?

So, if someone says, “Hey, some guys are getting together for a fishing trip,” and then some people on the email say, “Yes, I’m in,” others say, “No, I’m not,” I’m sure there are all kinds of things that are happening externally in their life and their situations and their travel plans. But internally, what are the core things that might make the difference between folks saying, “Yes, I’m in,” versus, “No, I’m out”?

Emily Falk
Well, each of our choices that we’re making in a deliberate way like that are shaped by our past experiences, like we just talked about. Our current context, which can include a lot of different things.

Like I said, there are all these other brain systems that are feeding into our value calculations, which include what we think about ourselves, like, “Am I the kind of person who goes fishing?”

What we think other people around us might be thinking or doing, like, if many other people in the chain have already replied enthusiastically, then that signals that this is, like, maybe something that is going to be fun or beneficial. And those kinds of social influences are really powerful in shaping our value calculations.

Our current mood and our emotional states impact our decision-making, and there are lots of other things as well. So, there’s all of these different context cues that feed into our subjective value associations. And so, the difference between somebody making the choice of say yes to the fishing trip or no to the fishing trip is going to be dependent on all those different things.

But I think one of the things that’s really helpful to understand is that we can shift how we feel about it depending on what we pay attention to.

Pete Mockaitis
And when you talk about shifts, can you tell us the tale of Ernie Grunfeld’s parents and how that brings this to life?

Emily Falk
Yeah, Ernie Grunfeld, for folks who don’t know, was a star NBA player and went on to become the general manager of several major NBA teams. So, he’s had a really star-studded career in basketball. But when he first came to the US, he immigrated from Eastern Europe, and his parents and he were Holocaust survivors.

And they ended up in New York, and his parents made all kinds of sacrifices to get the family to the US. And so, when they arrived, his parents set up a store, and Ernie would help out at the store on the weekends. He enrolled in school. His parents prioritized sort of higher-rent housing situation in order to be able to get him that education.

He came from this family that had a really strong core set of values related to those things. But, on the playground, it turned out that Ernie was amazing at basketball. And so, Ernie started to play on the playgrounds in New York, and then eventually, in high school, he got really, really good. But his parents were really busy working and they didn’t know that.

And so, his son, Dan, wrote a book where he describes the high school basketball coach calling up Mr. and Mrs. Grunfeld, and saying, “Your son is incredibly talented, and this is something that he could pursue as a ticket to college. Like, it’s going to be his ticket to getting scholarships. He’s going to be able to pursue this education,” in a way that really resonated with them.

And I’ll also add that Ernie’s dad, Alex, was an athlete himself. He had been a star ping-pong player, among other things. And so, the conditions were really right, where you could imagine some parents being in the situation where they’ve sacrificed so much for their kid to be able to be in this new place and pursue an education.

And if Coach Isser had focused on other things, like, for example, maybe how talented he was at basketball and what a gift it would be to the sport for him to play, like, I don’t know how that would’ve changed his parents’ calculations.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, good for basketball, that’s not our priority right now. Okay.

Emily Falk
Yeah. And so, the people who are receiving the message, his parents, have one set of things that’s really important to them, and through this conversation, Coach Isser was able to kind of highlight for them what an amazing opportunity this talent that Ernie had could afford. And so, there’s a really incredible story of them coming to the gym one night to watch him play basketball. They closed the store, which was something that they never typically did.

And they came in to the gym, and they didn’t even recognize him on the court in his uniform and playing, and so they were like, “Where’s our kid?” And then, it turned out that there he was, like, being amazing on the court. And after seeing that, I think that made it even more concrete and vivid for them, like what was possible.

And so then, they became really big supporters of him playing basketball. They released him from his duties working at the store. And he did go on to have a really incredible college career and, eventually, moved into the NBA.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, you mentioned releasing duties from the store. So, whereas, before, it sounds like, was a bit more of a, “Okay, we tolerate this basketball thing because it’s a thing you like to do,” and then they got shifted over to, “Oh, wait a minute. This is the ticket to all the things that we’ve been trying to create for you, so now we’re all in on you and basketball.”

Emily Falk
Yeah, I’m not sure even how much they talked about it before Coach Isser brought it up, right? Like, this incredibly amazing story that highlights his parents not even recognizing him at the gym. I think it wasn’t on their radar that this was something he did. Like, he went to the playground, he played with his friends, he did whatever he did after school, and then the coach kind of brought that into their focus.

So, thinking about that first part of decision-making process of, like, “What possibilities are even available?” Coach Isser sort of foregrounded this as something that could be a path for their kid, where I don’t know how many conversations Ernie and his parents were having before that.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so let’s say that we’re to utilize to use this cool brain science to see some good results in our lives, and maybe there’s any number of behaviors that we would like to change, maybe, “I wish I could focus longer, or on difficult strategic high-impact career things, or exercise, or have some challenging conversations with folks.”

If we want to make a shift in what we’re doing to doing more of the things that we think we “should” or would be good for us to do, where do we start?

Emily Falk
Yeah, let’s stick with the Ernie example for a little bit longer there because I think, although we’ve been talking about sort of his parents’ decision-making process, thinking about that long-term future for him, which is often something that his parents or as managers are trying to do, Ernie had different motivations for playing basketball.

He was playing basketball because he loved it. It was a way to make friends. It was a way to do something that felt really joyful for him in the moment. And I think that is a really instructive path towards success.

So, in particular, we often focus so much on distant outcomes, and in doing the thing that we think is going to be the best for us that we disregard or down-weight the things that, actually, is going to make the process joyful.

And so, going back to that idea that our brain has this system for calculating psychological distance, like our self-relevant system calculates what’s me and what’s not me, and it prioritizes the things that are immediately rewarding, that are socially similar to me, that are geographically close to me.

And so, when we think about how we can make those choices that you’re describing easier, I think one of the things that we can do is try to being them psychologically closer, try to bring the rewards psychologically closer.

And so, just to be concrete about what I mean, so you’re talking about, like, networking as one example. Sometimes we think about how we can take advantage of a conference or a new situation or we’re going to meet people at work as an opportunity to network and to build relationships that are going to be useful in the future.

But I think when people think about it that way, it’s kind of obvious why you would dread that, it’s like, “I’m going to kind of muddle through these maybe awkward interactions in service of some payoff that’s in the distant future.”

Whereas, if we think about, like, the chance to get to know somebody now and to actually have fun with a few people that we care about, like our peers, I think that can be a more successful strategy because it’s fun in the moment. So, it’s rewarding now but it also is building those bridges to the future.

And what I would say about that also is when we think about research on conversation, that people often underestimate how fun conversations with strangers are going to be. And so, maybe we are dreading things unnecessarily. Like, when you actually start to ask people questions that you’re curious to know the answers to, rather than just kind of the trite small talk stuff, then it actually can be really fun.

We also tend to underestimate how much other people like us. And so, people sometimes avoid having conversations because they’re worried that other people don’t want to have them but then it turns out that they do.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I think you’re great, Emily, and I like you.

Emily Falk
I think you’re great, too, Pete. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, we bring it close to us. And then I want to hear a bit about, when you say “like me” or “not like me,” my buddy, Scott, gave me a tip from somewhere about how it can actually be quite powerful to say, as we’re doing a thing that we want to do more of, it’s like, “Oh, it is so like me to wake up early and exercise.” And I was like, “Is that a real thing, Scott?” Tell us, Emily, is that a real thing?

Emily Falk
Yeah. Well, that is a good strategy in terms of thinking about the ways that the things that we want to do can be congruent with aspects of our personality or identity already. So, in the book, I talk a little bit about an experience that I had talking with my brother who is a real athlete. And when I was growing up, I didn’t really think of myself as specifically an athlete or a runner. I run to de-stress, I exercise for my mental health, but my siblings have always been much more athletic than I am.

And one day my brother came to me, and he said, “You know, if you did some targeted workouts, you could get much faster.” And initially I was like, “Why would I want to do that?”

Pete Mockaitis
“Speed? Who cares?”

Emily Falk
Yeah, right. Like, “Why do I need to run faster? Like, I have this other goal in mind.” And he was like, “Well, if you got faster, then you could hear the gossip on runs with me and Lily,” my sister. So, that was one motivation. But in terms of whether I was capable of it, he said to me, “Academics often make really good runners because they know how to plan and work hard towards a goal. And you already have all of these mental skills that you would need in order to be a really good runner.”

And so, he kind of reframed what I would think of as like a dichotomy previously of like nerd versus jock, like, “I’m really good at math and science, and I really like school.” And, instead, he said, “No, actually those things that make you really good at your job also could make you really good at this other thing.” And so, by connecting that aspect of my identity with this thing that he wanted me to do, he opened up that possibility.

And so, it’s not like, all of a sudden, I’m running marathons as quickly as he is but sometimes, I’ll add a few sprints to the end of my run now. And then there’s this kind of feed-forward cycle, where when we do do a thing that’s compatible with the longer-term goal, then that can become more a part of our identity. So, like, “I am a person who could run faster,” right? And so, then once I have that in mind, it makes it more motivating to do it in the future.

And underneath that, when we think about what’s happening in people’s brains, what we see is that self-relevance and value are really deeply intertwined. Like, there’s been research that Rob Chavez and Dylan Wagner did, where they showed that the same patterns of brain activity that can distinguish between whether somebody rates, say, a photo of a puppy as good or bad, positive or negative, that value calculation, can also distinguish whether somebody, that same person, will say that a given adjective, like boring or intelligent or messy, describes them.

And so, what that means is that, since the brain is kind of conflating self and value in these ways, that we tend to prioritize choices that immediately kind of feel like me and that sometimes we cut off or take off the table of possibilities for things in all different aspects of our life because they don’t necessarily immediately resonate as something that someone like me would do.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, it’s funny, I’m thinking about Bob Cialdini’s work with, who’s on the show and he’s amazing, Pre-Suasion, where he asked folks, I think the study was they asked folks to check out a new energy drink or a new food or beverage of some sort. And most people are not interested, like, “Hey, I’m just trying to shop, like go away.”

But if he prefaced it with, “Would you consider yourself an adventurous person?” and most people are like, “Well, adventurous is good. And I guess kind of, yeah.” It’s like, well, that was the pre-question. And then he asked, “Well, would you like to then try this new product?” The response rates went up because I think, in so doing, he made kind of a bridge in terms of, “Oh, yeah, trying this new product is congruent with who I am. I am an adventurous person and, therefore, I try new foods and beverages. Why not?”

Emily Falk
And that’s a great example of sort of that second part of value calculation, where if you want to change the way that you’re responding to something, or the way somebody else is responding to something, that the context matters so much, right?

And so, in general, maybe you’re moving through a supermarket and you’re thinking about one set of factors, like, “Am I thirsty? Like, have I already had a cup of coffee today?” whatever, right? But, by focusing on this aspect of your identity, like, “Oh, actually, I’m an adventurous person,” that is shifting the spotlight onto a different part of, like, the choice space, right? And so, it’s making it easier for you to say yes to that thing.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Now, you also had some research showing that our brain activity in the value system predicts whether or not we’re going to do some stuff better than whether we, ourselves, say we’re going to do the thing, whether it’s about using sunscreen or reducing smoking or exercising more. Can you speak a bit more on this?

Emily Falk
Sure. And I would say that those sources of information complement each other. So, it’s not necessarily that the brain is better, but that sometimes it gives different information than when we ask people about things like their intentions to change their behavior or their confidence in their ability to do it or their attitudes, like about the behavior in question.

And so, just like you said, we found that when you look at what happens in people’s brains, as they’re being exposed to these messages about all different kinds of behaviors, it can help predict not only whether people are going to change their behavior, but also what kinds of messages are going to be effective in shifting people’s preferences or other kinds of things that they do.

Pete Mockaitis
And so then, under the hood, is it that we can observe, I’m talking about, brain waves or activation energy? What is the thing we’re seeing? And what does it mean in terms of “activity” in the value system?

Emily Falk
There are a lot of different neuroimaging techniques that scientists use to measure brain activity. Most of the studies in what we value focus on functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, which uses changes in oxygenated and deoxygenated blood as a proxy for brain activity. So, the way that MRI, magnetic resonance imaging technology works is that there’s a big magnet and a changing magnetic field, and all of your blood has hemoglobin, like little tiny bits of iron that are susceptible to that magnetic field.

And so, what we can do is we can follow the change in concentrations of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood that are going to fuel your brain cells. All of the cells in your body need oxygen and glucose in order to function. And so, that’s why when certain parts of your brain are firing a lot, then they’re consuming more of that energy, and so the blood flow changes in order to supply that.

And so, the fMRI tracks, over the course of seconds, how much is the blood oxygen level dependent signal shifting. And so, when we say that the activation within the value system is changing, what we mean is that certain neurons in your brain are firing in a way that is then changing how the blood is flowing and supplying them with energy, and that we can pick up on that proxy for brain activity.

Pete Mockaitis
I love that. Because I’ve read that a lot, I was like, “Oh, FMRI studies show activation,” I was like, “How exactly does that even work?” So now we know. Thank you. That’s fun.

So, then, I guess I’m curious, it sounds like, as I’m imagining a person who’s hearing about a message about exercising more, and who ends up doing it, and then someone who doesn’t, the difference is that, in their brain, the parts associated with the value system are kind of they’re working it, they’re in it, they’re fired up, they’re doing the thing. And then someone else is, I guess, less so into it.

So, I’m curious, could you maybe venture to speculate, what are the kinds of things happening inside someone’s mind? What does it sound like when their value system activity is revved up versus what is it not? What is maybe a snippet of example illustrative internal dialogue sound like?

Emily Falk
Great. So, we started to talk a little bit before about some of the things that might make people more open to changing. So, one of them is feeling like there’s a more immediate reward.

In studies that we’ve run, looking at people who were relatively sedentary, and we’re trying to coach them to be more physically active, we may give them messages about how or why they would do that.

So, stuff like, “People who are at your level of physical inactivity are at increased risk for heart disease,” or, “The best parking spots are the ones that are farthest away. So, park at the edge of the parking lot and get some extra steps as you’re walking into your office.” And for a lot of us, when we get this kind of coaching that suggests that stuff we were doing in the past might not be optimal, one of the reactions that it triggers is defensiveness.

And that goes back to the idea that we conflate self and value, so stuff that I did in the past, we tend to be biased to think like, “Well, that was me, and so, ideally, that was a good decision.” And so, messages or coaching or feedback that suggests that what we were doing in the past isn’t optimal can be threatening to that sense of self.

And so, people, their internal dialogue might be something like, “Yeah. Well, okay, some people who are sedentary are at increased risk of heart disease. But I eat a pretty good diet and I try to keep my salt down, so it’s probably not that big of a deal for me.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, this is what low-value system activity kind of sounds like.

Emily Falk
Yeah. So, if it’s like coming up with reasons why this doesn’t really apply to me, or that this information, or advice isn’t particularly valuable, then we’d expect to see less activation within the value system. And so, in the study that I’m describing here, one of the ways that we tried to help people be more open to that information was a process called values affirmation.

Where before they got any of the coaching, half of the people are randomized to get these values affirmations where they choose a value that’s really important to them. And then we have them think about scenarios where that value is going to come into play. So, like, what’s a value that’s really important to you, Pete? Friends and family, creativity, spirituality?

Pete Mockaitis
Let’s say learning.

Emily Falk
Okay, great. So, learning is a value that’s really important to you. So, we’d have you maybe vividly imagine situations where, like, what’s a time that you have learned something that was really amazing that helped you do your job better? Or what’s a time when you have learned something that changed the way that you interacted with other people? Or what’s a time in the future where learning is going to open new doors for you?

And so, we might have you reflect on these different kinds of scenarios and imagine them vividly. And that would be the values affirmation. People in the control group would do a similar kind of thing but we would give them a value that’s not important to them.

And what we saw was that then going into those coaching messages, which are literally the same for everybody in the study. The only thing that’s different is whether they’ve gotten to reflect on that value that means a lot to them or not beforehand.

The people who got to do that work of kind of zooming out and thinking about what actually matters to them, I think, could then see that, like, whether or not they parked in the farthest parking spot from their work, or actually we’re moving around as much as the federal guidelines recommend, that that doesn’t actually determine whether you’re a good person or not. It’s not the thing that determines your self-worth.

And so, that’s one possibility for why we would see more activation in the value system, more activation in the self-relevant system when they’re exposed to those coaching messages after getting that chance to zoom out.

And then the last piece of the puzzle was the more people showed increased activation in the value or self-relevant system as they were getting those coaching messages, the more they went on to actually change their behavior.

So, for the month afterwards, we sent them text message reminders that were kind of little boosters and measured their physical activity with accelerometers, like imagine a Fitbit that doesn’t give you feedback.

And so, it seemed like the intervention that we did, made people’s brains more receptive to the information. And then the more they were receptive to that information or the more they showed activation in these brain regions, the more likely they were to change their behavior afterwards.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s really cool and actionable. Thank you. I guess I’m curious, if there’s many, many different values, it seems like some of them would seem to map better to exercise more than others. But just doing it, value affirming any one of your values, makes you more down to exercise kind of whatever the value, regardless of the value?

Emily Falk
Well, there’s two different pathways that I think you’re pointing at. So, one is, in values affirmation, in that literature, mostly people focus on values that don’t have to do with the behavior that you’re trying to change, because the idea is you’re trying to get somebody to kind of zoom out and reduce the threat of the thing that you’re asking them to change.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, so defensive reduction happens regardless.

Emily Falk
Exactly. So, you’re trying to reduce their defensiveness by anchoring them in something that kind of is bigger than themself, right, something that connects them to other people, ideally, like something that is self-transcendent.

And so, when they reflect on those kinds of things, then the logic is that it can help them see that, like, like I said, whether you exercise or not this week doesn’t make you a good or bad person, right? And that there could be useful information in this coaching, even if it means changing something about what you were doing in the past. So, that’s like one pathway.

You’re also kind of highlighting, though, with your question that, like when my brother tried to connect my identity as an academic with the possibility of running, that’s sort of a different way of tapping into a connection between something that we value and our identity, and tailoring a message in that way can also make it more effective. So, there are tons of studies that have shown that when messages are tailored to people’s values and to their lifestyle and to their demographics that it can make the messages more effective.

So, for example, in a study that Hannah Chua led at Michigan, looking at smokers, when smokers received messages that were tailored to their personal motivations, let’s say, it’s like they’re motivated to quit because smoking is really expensive, or they’re motivated to quit because they have kids and they’re really worried about the effects of secondhand smoke, that those messages both increased activation within parts of medial prefrontal cortex, which is core to several of the kinds of key systems that we’ve been talking about. And that those tailored messages are more effective in changing their behavior.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now that you got me thinking about those tailored messages, do we tend to get better results stoking our fears or by amplifying a beautiful positive vision, or the combo?

Emily Falk
There have been meta-analyses that show that fear appeals can work. So, you can get people to change their behavior by highlighting the negative consequences of things that’ll come.

There’s also a set of research on what’s called mental contrasting with implementation intentions, where the idea is that it’s not enough to just fantasize about a future that you want, like the good things that would come. You have to identify what the gap is between where you are now and that future state. So, that’s the mental contrasting part.

And then once you’ve figured out, like, what are the things that are potentially in the way of you moving from where you are right now to where you want to be in the future, then you can use the second part of that MCII, mental contrasting with implementation intentions, the implementation intentions part, which is those if-then plans where you say, “If I’m in this situation, then I will do this.”

So, for example, this has been applied to voting, like making detailed plan of like, “When it’s Tuesday morning and if it’s raining out, I’m going to get my partner, get an umbrella, and go to our polling station anyway,” or, “I’m going to get a ride from my mom,” or whatever the thing is that’s going to help you overcome the obstacle that you’re perceiving.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Emily, in our final minutes here, can you share what are your top-top do’s and don’ts you recommend if we are looking to make a change? Do more of something or do less of something, we want to, if we could, as close as possible, flip the switch, wave the magic wand so that we’re now behaving the way we’d like to be?

Emily Falk

One is, I would say, do think about how you can make the process joyful now. Like, don’t just save all the rewards for later. So, if you’re trying to get more exercise and you really hate running, like, go dancing or choose something, which is gonna be…

Pete Mockaitis
Pickleball.

Emily Falk
Yeah, Pickleball. If you love pickleball, play pickleball, right? Do the thing that’s going to be fun now and also compatible with the longer-term goal. Or if you’re trying to eat healthier, like, choose things that are both tasty for you now and healthy. Like, surely there are things that are at the intersection of those rather than just, like, stomaching something that you are not going to want to do over and over again for the long term. So that’s one thing.

Another thing I would say is thinking about that defensiveness and making sure that when you go into a conversation or situation where you’re going to get feedback, that you don’t throw out helpful advice because it’s potentially threatening to your sense of self, right?

So, knowing that our brain’s default is to kind of conflate self and value, we can be aware and on guard for that kind of feeling. And instead, think about, like, “What are the things that we can learn from the feedback that we’re getting? What are the pieces of feedback that can help us grow and change and do what we want to do?”

And then the last thing that I would say, that we haven’t delved as deeply into, is that social rewards are incredibly powerful. And so, for all of these things, as we’re trying to think about, “How can we make something more rewarding now that the long-term payoff is far in the future?” We can do it with other people who also care about it.

In my lab, we often work together on tasks that are the least fun tasks, work on that thing you don’t want to work on. An acronym for that, that my grad school pal, Elliot Berkman, coined is wotty’d wot wot. And when you do it with other people who also value the goal and the work, then it’s more fun.

And, likewise, you can think about, like in this moment, looking around and trying to think about like, “What can I do to improve the situation that we’re all in?” like, that can feel vague and distant and in the future. But if you think about like, the most important thing is just to do something, right? Like, think about what you want to change, and then do it visibly with other people. That can also be a really powerful reward. So, those are a few for me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, beautiful. Thank you, Emily. Well, now could you share a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Emily Falk
Yeah. One of my favorites right now is the study that I talked about where they showed that the same brain patterns that can classify whether something is good or bad can also classify whether something is me or not me.

Because I find, personally, that that’s so useful to keep in mind, that those things are getting intertwined in our brains in ways that we may not necessarily be paying attention to, and then can have all of these knock-on effects in terms of making us feel defensive or on the other side, restricting the possibilities that we see for ourselves and others.

And that same research team has gone on to do a bunch of other interesting research about, like, how we represent our sense of self and relate to other people. So, that’s one of my favorites right now.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?

Emily Falk
One that I used as a foundation for the last chapter in the book is Maria Ressa’s autobiography, How to Stand Up to a Dictator. And one of the things that I really love about that story is that it highlights how the person that we become, and when we do big hard things like she did, that it’s really a series of these tiny little decisions.

And so, as we think about the choices that we’re making on a day-to-day basis, Maria Ressa went on to get a Nobel Peace Prize for her work in journalism, making all of these extraordinary and brave choices. But when she describes the process of growing up and the things that shaped her values and the things that shaped her daily decisions, it feels accessible and ordinary. So, that’s a book that I really loved recently.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool?

Emily Falk

One of my favorite tools in the lab is what we call fast friends. And fast friends is a protocol where you can randomly assign people to have a friend in the lab. And sometimes you want that because the real history of people’s friendships comes with all kinds of baggage and different people have different kinds of friendships and so on.

So, psychologists develop this tool called fast friends, which starts out with surface-level questions, like, “If you could have dinner with anyone in the world, who would it be?” or, “What constitutes a perfect day for you?” And then the questions get increasingly intimate, building to things like, “If you were to die tonight, what’s one thing that you haven’t told anyone? And why not?” And asking your partner for advice.

And so, over the course of like an hour, you actually become friends with someone. So, that’s a favorite psychological tool for me.

Pete Mockaitis
Now, is this the same questions to fall in love with anyone?

Emily Falk
Yeah. So, the media has often characterized this as, like, 36 questions to fall in love. And, yeah, great, use it for that. But also, I’ve done it with my grandmother. I’ve done it with my father-in-law. I’ve done it with my kids.

I’ve done it with, recently, I went to an experience potluck, which was super fun. People brought different experiences with them and then offered them to each other, kind of like a food potluck, and I brought fast friends, and I got to do it with a stranger who’s now my friend.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. And a favorite habit?

Emily Falk
Making time to actually focus on quality time with my partner. So, a habit involves something where there’s a cue and then a thing that you repeat and then kind of a reward that you get at the end. And so, after our kids fall asleep, that’s the cue, and then there’s like half an hour to an hour where we hang out in the kitchen and try to actually focus on the present.

And the reward is getting to feel close to a person that I care about. I don’t always do that perfectly. So, I don’t know if it fully counts as a habit because the definition of a habit involves essentially doing it fully on automatic pilot, and that’s kind of the opposite.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks, you’re being quoted back to yourself often?

Emily Falk
That we’re not ever really making decisions alone.

So, we imagine that we’re making decisions independent of lots of other factors, but the data really bear out the idea that our brains value systems are deeply influenced by what other people are thinking and feeling and doing in so many different areas, ranging from what foods we like to who we think is attractive, to the art that we hang on our walls, to whether we vote.

And so, that idea that we’re not deciding alone and that it’s not just that we’re performing some kind of conformity, but that our value calculations are actually deeply shaped by the people around us. And so, I think that really kind of, like, complicates the idea of authenticity, right? That, like, often, sometimes people think that, when they’re conforming or when they’re following along with other people’s preferences, that that’s somehow inauthentic.

And actually, I think, the people that we choose to spend our time with are really deeply shaping who we are in so many important ways. And so, we want to be aware of that, both in terms of who we’re choosing as role models, and who we’re choosing to spend our time and energy with, and how we’re showing up for our kids and our friends and our colleagues because we’re shaping them also, right? So, the kind of future and the way that the world is going to unfold is starting also in our own minds.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Emily Falk
Well, my lab’s website, FalkLab.org, has all of our research papers for free. I also share research, both from our team and others on LinkedIn. And then our lab has a bunch of other social media channels that you can find on the website.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Emily Falk
Just like we know that other people influence us, we’re influencing other people. And so, when we look around and we see big challenges or hard things that we want to have be different in the world, then it’s not that we have to have a perfect plan, but that if we choose something and start to move towards it in a way that prioritizes doing it in a way that feels fun and joyful, and then we can bring other people in and show them what we’re doing, that I do think we have the capacity in aggregate to make big changes.

Pete Mockaitis
Emily, thank you.

Emily Falk
Thank you, Pete. So great to talk to you.

1025: Boosting Your Learning and Presenting with the Science of Memory with Dr. Charan Ranganath

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Dr. Charan Ranganath discusses the science behind our brain’s capacity to remember (and forget) and how it can help you make better decisions and impressions.

You’ll Learn

  1. How emotions shape memory
  2. How to hack your brain for enhanced retention
  3. The 4 C’s of memorable messaging

About Charan 

Charan Ranganath is a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of California at Davis. For over 25 years, Dr. Ranganath has studied the mechanisms in the brain that allow us to remember past events, using brain imaging techniques, computational modeling and studies of patients with memory disorders. He has been recognized with a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship. He lives in Davis, California.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Anna Dearmon Kornick Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Charan, welcome.

Charan Ranganath
Thank you.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m so excited to hear what you’ve got to say about memory and your book, Why We Remember. And could you kick us off with a particularly fascinating insight you’ve discovered about us humans and memory from all of your research?

Charan Ranganath
Two things that I think are particularly interesting, one is really recent research is showing how much we reuse the same kinds of elements across different kinds of memories. In other words, you think like, “If I take a bunch of pictures of my dog, my phone will store different photos of my dog. It doesn’t reuse the same space on my phone for multiple pictures, but my brain is really using a lot of the same elements across multiple memories that overlap.”

So, memory seems more like a structure that you would build out of Legos, and you could just as easily take those Legos apart and use some of the same Legos to build something completely different, right? And that’s, I think, what I’m most excited about right now, is just seeing how economical our brains are. It’s not laying down something brand new for every event that we experience. It’s really doing a lot of recombination.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, that is really intriguing. And then there could be some interesting implications there associated with misremembering things. Like, if your brain has a Lego block for dog, your dog, and then your dog may have had a very different, I don’t know, facial expression, posture, whatever, in a particular memory, but if you’re using a more generic dog memory, then those nuances are not present and perhaps more prone to distortion. I’m just totally speculating, making things up here.

Charan Ranganath
No, that’s absolutely true. In fact, what happens often is, as people remember the same event multiple times, the memory drifts more and more towards what people kind of knew beforehand, and you get less and less of the details that are unique to a particular event.

So, what we think the brain is doing is it’s taking this kind of a template and then it’s tacking on some details that make this particular moment unique. And so,  you might remember something specific about what your dog actually did the last time you took your dog for a walk, but most of that memory, the backbone of it is going to be based on just my general knowledge of what happens when I walk the dog and the expectations that I have about it.

If you actually look at brain scans of people who are, let’s say, watching a movie, what you find is that if people remember the movie, you’re using a lot of those same Legos as you do when you’re watching the movie. And then if you ask people to imagine something completely new, we think what’s going to happen is that you use some of those same Legos again to imagine something that hasn’t happened.

In other words, when we remember, we’re using those Legos basically to assemble a little model of the past, to imagine how the past could have been. But you could just easily take those Legos and assemble a little model of the future, or assemble a little model of what’s happening right now. And I think that’s a pretty profound idea that we’re very excited about.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, then that gets me thinking about the sort of like the state or mood that we’re in and how that’s influenced by what we’re focusing on, and whether in the present or what we’re choosing to reminisce about, whether that was a very pleasant or unpleasant experience, or what we choose to imagine about the future, whether that’s a worry or a visualization of a dramatic victory that you’re going through.

So, that would seem to imply that we have a tremendous power within us in terms of what we choose to focus on and visualize and the moods and, I guess, vibe, presence that we bring into a given moment. Is that accurate?

Charan Ranganath
Oh, that’s totally accurate, yeah. In fact, what you can find is that when people remember an event, you can say, “Hey, try to remember it from the perspective of this other person who’s part of the event.” And people will remember a lot of details that they didn’t remember before. So, we can always reframe and revise our memories of the past by looking at it from a different perspective, right?

But, likewise, what can happen, especially when we’re in particularly emotional experiences, is the emotion kind of puts us in a particular frame of mind and filters a lot of the way that we think about the memory later on. So, I think with emotional memories, especially more difficult memories, people feel a bit stuck, and often you need to actually talk about that information with someone else to be able to incorporate a different perspective and see the experience from a different way of thinking.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, I mean, this is just intrinsically fascinating stuff. We could poke and dive into all kinds of tidbits, but how about you give us the broad frame for it? What’s sort of the big idea or core message from your book, Why We Remember?

Charan Ranganath
The core message is that memory isn’t this repository of the past that is keeping a comprehensive library of everything that we’ve experienced it as we’ve experienced it. It’s much more about the present and the future than it is about the past.

And so, the analogy that took me months after writing the book, but I really like it because in the months after publishing the book, I’ve been traveling a lot. And one of the things I came to notice is that when I’m packing, I’ve become very good at anticipating what I’ll need. And so, you don’t want to pack too much because then you’re lugging around a bunch of stuff. And if you pack really too much, you’ll never find what you’re looking for. And you don’t want to under-pack and miss out on the stuff that you need that you’re going to use all the time.

And I think it’s like people approach memory as if we’re supposed to take everything that we’ve ever experienced with us on the journey of life. And I think our brains are much more designed to pack just what you need so that you have it when you need it. I mean, there’s all sorts of stuff that I own that I like, like my lamp and stuff like that, that I’m not going to take with me when I go on trips. And I think our brains are really designed to take what we need and to leave a lot of the rest behind so that we have the information that we need when we need it in the future.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s interesting, and yet it seems sometimes I have memories that seem to be not at all helpful, and, in fact, counterproductive that I would like to forget. What’s this about?

Charan Ranganath
It’s a great question. And sometimes those counterproductive memories can be because we just happen to be zoning out and paying attention to something and got excited about some random factoid during the moment. And that excitement can actually create a memory or kind of improve your ability to remember something later on.

Sometimes it’s because we’re not focusing on what we’re supposed to be focusing on, and so we end up going on these, having difficulty filtering out our experiences. And, in fact, there’s some work suggesting that, as people get older, that inability to filter out what’s irrelevant means that you end up remembering stuff that’s irrelevant at the expense of the stuff that’s important and relevant. So, that could be a factor too.

But you can also think of it like we don’t necessarily know what we need later on. And so, sometimes our brains are probably just taking their best guess. And it could be because something was just a little surprising and made you go, “Hmm, that’s interesting.” Or it could be because you were in a particular emotional state at the time, or who knows, right? It’s really hard to reverse-engineer a particular memory that you might have. But there are all sorts of reasons why you might have access to some memory that seems really random.

Pete Mockaitis
And since there’s so many dimensions or directions we could take this into, what do you think are some of the top implications of this research for our professional lives and careers?

Charan Ranganath
I think that one big implication is if you’re trying to communicate, which is essential to almost all jobs, but especially in knowledge-based jobs, I feel like you need to start with the assumption that most of what you communicate will be forgotten. And so, that is very, very important because once you start with that, then you can say, “What are the key points that I really want someone to take away?”

And you can use some strategies to really emphasize those key points over and over again. But I think often what we can get caught up in doing is we just say a lot of things and then we expect everyone to remember them later on.

Likewise, one of the things that you find is that people will usually tell me, “Hey, I have a terrible memory. Help me out.” But then in the moment, they assume that everything that’s happening, they will remember it later on. So, people have this weird overconfidence in how much they’ll remember.

And so, if you’re listening to someone else, it’s also really important to factor in that you’re not going to be able to remember everything. And so, that can be very important, too, because sometimes you might need help to document all the things that are going on if it’s something that’s super memorable. I feel like it’s really good to rely on devices that have a photographic memory because humans don’t.

And so, when it comes to reminders of things, I think devices are great. Now there’s all sorts of problems with our devices that can cause problems for our memory, but we can talk about that, too. I mean, I think that’s another big important thing for the workplace, for sure.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, just because it’s hanging in the air. Problems with these devices, are you talking about like interruptions or what do you mean?

Charan Ranganath
Yeah, so the problems with the devices, the biggest one I would say is interruptions, but not only interruptions that are external, but our own kind of conflicts that are happening in our heads. So, in other words, you have a phone, let’s say if I have my phone in front of me, and I know I have my phone there, well, that phone is associated with checking email. And if you have a habit of checking email on your phone constantly, even when you’re not checking email, you might have an urge to go on the phone and check your email because it’s there, it’s around. So, it’s this cue.

Pete Mockaitis
Ah, it’s reminding you of the behavior, “So, let’s go ahead and do it.”

Charan Ranganath
Exactly. And so, the phone itself isn’t the problem. It’s the habit that’s the problem. And, likewise, you have social media. If you check social media habitually, if you have social media apps on your phone, every time that phone is around, you’ve got a little bit of an urge to check it that’s going on in the background.

One of the weird things, I’d learned about this after I wrote the book is when you do something, let’s say that’s long and tedious, like we often have to do at work, what tires you out is not necessarily doing the tedious work as much as the fact that our brains start to ask ourselves, “Okay, what could I be?” And I realize this is sounding very unscientific, but there are more mechanistic ways of describing this.

But essentially, our brain starts pulling up other options the longer we persist on something that’s not rewarding to us. Our brain starts popping up other options, they’re going to give us immediate rewards. Our brains really like things that are immediately rewarding, as opposed to activities that have some benefit in the long run.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, intriguing. Well, could you tell us a story of someone who struggled in some of these dimensions and then implemented some of your approaches and saw a cool transformation as a result?

Charan Ranganath
I can talk about myself as somebody who struggles with all these issues and talk about how I’m trying to transform my life. I mean, it’s not easy, right? I get all sorts of messages from people that are labeled urgent. And so, it’s very hard for me to completely disengage from things like email. In fact, actually, come to think of it, I should quit my email program that’s running in the background right now.

And I have to say, I don’t know how they actually came to this conclusion, but my school, when I was a kid, told my parents that I have ADHD. And this was long before the whole, like, thing where schools had real benefit in actually assigning these diagnoses. Back then, it was just like nobody even thought about this stuff. And so, more recently, I’ve kind of come to terms with that. I sort of stuck that, that was in the back of my mind for a long time.

And then, recently, after the book came out, I had some reminders that brought that to mind. And I started to go, “Oh, yeah.” And then I had this aha moment of all of these things that I do and things that go on in my life that are seriously problematic because of ADHD. And so, one of the things that I’ve done is really tried to engineer my environment. And what I mean by that is I’ve removed my social media apps from my phone.

I was getting really stressed out about the presidential election, so I removed all my news apps from the phone. I’ve really removed all the alerts except for things that are calendar alerts. I removed everything else from my phone so that I’m not getting notifications. I have a whole kind of set of things that I do for planning and so forth, but I guess relevant to memory, the biggest things that I do are things that involve minimizing distractions, trying to reduce switching.

Switching is very costly to us in terms of our mental resources. And if we switch too much between things, what can happen is that that leads us to have very fragmented memories of the activities that we’re doing so that’s not a really good thing either. So, on an ideal day, I might block off time to do things like social media and email and so forth, and then block off time where I’m going to be doing other activities. So, I would say that these are some tools.

But I think the biggest thing is that I’m learning that slow thinking is a lot more effective than fast thinking, and really trying to catch myself when I’m going into this kind of panic mode of all the hundreds of things I have to do, catching myself and then kind of taking one thing at a time. And the reason is that, if I am scattered too much and I’ve got too many things going on that I’m thinking about, I really will have no memory of that day afterwards. So, that’s a big thing.

I guess another thing I’ll say, this is probably the biggest transformation that I made, is I really think about bigger decisions in life in terms of how I want things to be remembered. And what I mean by that is, like, we just all got through the New Year. And every time you get to the end of the year, it’s natural to reflect on what happened earlier in the year. And then people make their resolutions for the next year.

And I feel like it’s really important to ask yourself, for all the things that we do, “Is this how I want to remember this year that’s gone by?” And there’s all sorts of activities that we do that we won’t remember. And even if we did remember, we won’t want to have remembered our lives that way. It’s not like you sit around and go, like, “Boy, I’m really glad I spent like four hours watching TikTok videos,” or something. Nobody says that, I don’t think.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, this is powerful stuff. Well, so let’s put some things into action. Let’s say, in the course of doing my professional duties, I want to learn some things. I want to develop some skills and recall some key information, tips and tricks, and insights from the How to Be Your Job podcast, etc. Like, I’m learning some stuff and I want to remember more of it. What are some best practices?

Charan Ranganath
One of the best practices, I would say, if I had to pick one thing, is give yourself the chance to fail. And what I mean by that is you tend to think, “Okay, well,” and realistically speaking, I mean, it’s a very understandable intuition that if I’m trying to remember something, if I’m trying to memorize something, saying it to myself over and over, is the best way to do it.

But, in fact, if you give yourself the chance to try to remember it later on, and you don’t remember it, and then you give yourself the answer, that’s going to give you far better retention of the information than if you didn’t give yourself the chance to do it. It’s called, I talk about this in my book, as error-driven learning. Other people talk about it as active learning.

But this error-driven learning principle is so powerful that even before you learn something, if you test yourself on what the answer could be, you’ll remember that answer better than if you just tried to memorize that answer. Does that make sense?

Pete Mockaitis
Yes. Yes, I hear you. We had Dr. Manu Kapur on the show, and talking about, I think the label he used was productive failure. And this very notion that, and I’ve noticed it myself ever since he tuned me into it, is that if I do a thing and then fail, and then I learn what happened there, it is so much more impactful in terms of, “Oh, it feels like an epiphany. Like, that’s where I went wrong, of course,” as opposed to I’m just passively receiving one of thousands of things in the day, which can wash right over me.

Charan Ranganath
Yeah. Yeah, and it’s really funny because in certain activities, it’s almost a given that that’s going to be the way you want to learn. Like, if you’re going to be in a play, you don’t just sit around and memorize the script. You actually try to recite the lines. And that’s when you realize how little you know, but also your brain can repair those memories and optimize them so they’re more accessible later on. Or if you’re learning to play basketball, you don’t watch a bunch of footage. You actually do it, right?

And, likewise, I think we don’t do this with other things. I mean, if you look at school, school is all about good performance. It’s not about learning. It’s really about mastery. And I think it’s what you really would want to do is be able to encourage people to push themselves to the point where they’re getting C’s and then they learn the answer, and then they actually get better as a result. But we don’t really do that.

And so, I think that’s why there’s this intuition out there that we’re just supposed to be good at remembering, and that’s not true. I mean, you’re going to be better at remembering if you fail to remember and then learn from that mistake.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now you got me thinking about my kids and the learning that’s happening right now. So, I’ve got my five-year-old Mary, we have a keyboard, a little Casio. She’s been playing around on it, and she was trying to learn how to play “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” And it was so interesting to watch because she would get a few notes right, and do the wrong one. And she could hear and recognize that it was wrong. And she would sound so frustrated, like, “Aargh!” It’s like, “It’s totally okay. This is just how it works.

But, in a way, that frustration, that “Aargh!” moment is, in fact, quite valuable. Like, she’s better off, for the purposes of learning “Mary Had a Little Lamb” as far as I understand it, experiencing that than not experiencing that to cement the learnings.

Charan Ranganath
Yeah, that’s exactly right. And the key is that you have to, and I know this is kind of a hot topic because of all the stuff with the growth mindset, for instance, but it’s absolutely true. The key is that you have to see the mistake as an opportunity to learn. You don’t want to see the mistake as evidence that you have a bad ability. You want to see the mistake as, “Okay, here’s how I fix this memory.”

And that’s really key because you want to be able to focus your efforts on the right answer as opposed to simply, like, just getting mad at yourself and kicking yourself. That doesn’t help you. And so, what’s important about that is, again, we don’t really do a great job of incentivizing people to try and fail. And, at the same time, I think it’s also important, in the “Mary Had a Little Lamb” case, it’s good to have a teacher who can actually say, “Here’s how you should do it.”

On the other hand, if she knows how to do it, she could take a moment to slow down, and then say, “Okay, here’s where I made the mistake. Let me try this again and focus on the right answer.” And that is where, again, you can get the biggest gains.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. And I was also thinking about, talking about kids and learning, I was inside the Khan Academy app. And so, my other child, Johnny, we were doing some math stuff. And I had these thoughts about productive failure in my mind. And I noticed just from top to bottom, the sequencing is, first, “Here’s the video of how to do the math problems. And here are some math problems to do.”

And I wondered, not to think that I know better than the mighty Sal Khan, but it’s like, “Would it be better if this were completely flipped in terms of ‘Try to do these math problems and fail miserably. Now, hey, here’s how to do them.’?” That might be a better way to learn, even though it’s the exact opposite of what I’ve done in my learning and how the app is set up. What are your thoughts?

Charan Ranganath
Yes. Yeah, I absolutely think that would be the case. It might be better to give yourself the chance to screw up and then, after each problem, get “Here’s how you do it.” And then get another problem, because this is a general skill that you’re trying to learn. You could give the question, give yourself a chance to screw up, get “Here’s how you do it,” then get a similar question, and then screw up, and then, “Here’s how you do it” again. And keep giving yourself those opportunities and keep bringing up.

I mean, the algorithms could easily bring up the ones that you’ve struggled with the most and give you very similar problems. And I think that’s a much more effective way to learn than to, you know, it’s still good that they include those tests in there, but I think it would be better if you could really optimize it in a way that’s sort of pushing people to struggle a little bit more.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Okay. Well, let’s flip it. Let’s say we are the dispenser of wisdom, knowledge, information as a presentation or training or any form of communication. You said it really is helpful to think about, “Hmm, give most people will forget most of what we have to say, really hone in on the top key messages that we wish to be remembered.” Do you have any pro tips on how we implement that in practice?

Charan Ranganath
Yes. And, in fact, I actually wrote an article about this in Harvard Business Review. It was the four C’s of memorable messaging, is what I called it.

Okay, so one is chunking. So, chunking is a principle by which you take all the things that you’re like, let’s say, if I’m presenting information, and there’s all these details, you want to be able to explicitly tie it into, like, one chunk. So, for instance, what you can do is you can start to say, “Okay, here’s a general principle.”

I’m trying to tell people to basically try to take care of their brain health. And I’m trying to remember what all the things are there that I tell people because there’s a hundred different facts I can tell people about how to improve their brain health. Well, one of the key principles is your brain’s a body part. So, what’s good for your body is good for your brain.

Now you start for that and you can say, “Okay, well, what’s good for my heart?” “Oh, yeah, so doing all these things to reduce your blood pressure, to reduce your cholesterol and so forth. Those are things that you could do to improve your brain health.”

And then another one is callbacks, where you want to keep going back to what you said previously. So, now people have to take a moment to remember what they were just being, what you told them about five minutes ago, and they’re tying together what’s happening now with what’s happening then. And, again, you’re creating this little chunk of knowledge.

Another is curiosity. And so, you were asking me before about one of the discoveries from my lab. And one of the things that we discovered, which really surprised me, was how curiosity can drive learning. And it relates to this error-driven learning stuff that we talked about, where we were interested in this idea that being curious is a motivator.

And when you look at other motivators, like, people trying to get money, for instance, or people trying to get food, what you find is that you get activity in these areas of the brain that process dopamine. And dopamine isn’t really a reward chemical. It’s really about energizing you to get reward and teaching you about what’s rewarding.

And so, what we found is that when you give people a question and they’re really curious about the answer to this question, they don’t know it, what happens is there’s an increase in activity in the areas of the brain that process dopamine. And it’s triggered, as I said, by the question, not by the answer per se. Now, if the answer is surprising, then you might get more of an effect. But, in general, just getting a question can energize people and drive them to find the answer.

And when they’re in that state of curiosity, they’ll be better at memorizing things that they’re not even curious about. So, if you can start off by getting people interested in the question before you give them the answer, that’s really important. And so, for instance, when I wrote my book, I had to relearn this principle and I had to really think about, “Okay, what are the counterintuitive in memory research?”

Because once you highlight a counterintuitive, then you can start to ask, get people thinking about your points in a way that gets them more likely to stick because they really are going to be curious to find out the answers to these questions. Does that make sense?

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, it does. And I’m thinking about, yeah, I believe Bob Cialdini in his book Influence mentioned that this was an approach he liked to use in the classroom, in terms of, he generates a question and then deepens it a little bit, so it’s like a full-blown mystery. And some YouTubers do this very well in terms of like there are many documentaries. And so, that’s a good tip is like we start with the question.

But then help me out. If we ask a question, but then, sometimes when I hear a question, I just don’t care at all. And so, then it feels like I’m not getting the benefit of that curiosity in terms of, “Okay, you asked a question, I don’t care.” So, I guess that’s a tricky number. How could I…?

Charan Ranganath
Well, so the question needs to trigger curiosity. And for people to be curious, you have to hit this sweet spot. Because if it’s something where you have just no knowledge about anything in that area, well, you’re not going to necessarily be curious about it because, “Yeah, of course I don’t know the question. I don’t know the answer to this question.” And if you know the answer to the question, then you’re not going to be curious if it’s obvious.

Where you really want to get people is where there’s a gap between what you’ve just told them and what they need to know to answer the question. And that gap should be something that is bridgeable. So, one way you can do it is by highlighting this thing that people go, “I hadn’t thought about that,” or, “I thought I knew this topic but now there’s something I realized that I didn’t know.”

So, I mean, I’m just pulling something out from just random, but if somebody were really into The Beatles, and you said, “Hey, do you know the lyrics to the song?” and they hadn’t heard that song, they would be really curious about it. But another way to go is to also be able to say, “Hey, there’s this thing that you thought you knew, but, in fact, I’m going to flip it on its head, and, in fact, I’m going to ask this question that really prompts you to realize that there’s an error in what you thought you knew.”

So, in general, these tools to increase curiosity are driving what’s called prediction error, which is essentially you’re expecting to know the answer to something, and then there’s, all of a sudden, this gap between what you knew and what you’re actually getting. Does that make sense?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it’s actually perfect, thank you, in terms of, I’m thinking about, I had some podcast sponsors for like really deep software technology things, as come through the agencies, like, “Hey, do you want this sponsor?” And then I go to their website, it’s like, “I have no idea what they’re even saying about some deep cloud architecture something or another.”

“And so, they may very well be solving an important problem for somebody, but I feel like I’m not your guy to speak this advertisement because, if I don’t know what it is, I’m not going to be compelling. And I can’t vet it properly in terms of whether it really is a good, cool thing or not.” And so then, there’s no curiosity because I don’t have a clue. I’m not even on the same map.

And then on the flip side, if I have full knowledge, they’re like, “Hey, Pete, you’re a podcaster. Do you know the number one thing podcasters do to grow their audience?” Like, “Yes, I do.” So, it’s like, “You were trying to make me curious, but you failed because I already know it.” And so, I think that’s perfect with the gap.

And, in fact, you’re identifying one of my favorite types of books, which is an event occurred some time ago, and we have some perspective on that in deep layers in terms of the author went deep with the interviews of the people like, Bethany McLean, her books are so great. Like, the smartest guys in room about Enron. It’s like, “I know, I’ve heard about Enron.” “Well, here’s what really went down and all the details.”

Or, the housing finance crisis in 2008, it’s like, “Oh, yeah, I kind of know a little bit about it.” It’s like, “No, here’s all the details.” And so, Bethany McLean just lays it all out for me. I love it. And it’s exactly that, it’s, like, I have some knowledge of the thing, but there’s some gaps, and she fills them with gusto and it’s a delightful experience.

Charan Ranganath
Yeah. And I think it’s like in the current age of the internet, you have to be careful because it’s like, I know for me, I’ve seen enough stuff now where it’s like people sell a book and they say “Everything you used to know about this topic is wrong.” And I think there’s a little bit of fatigue that you get from reading those kinds of things.

But to the extent that you can highlight a genuine counterintuitive or a genuine gap that people just hadn’t actually thought about, I think that’s going to be effective at triggering curiosity. And your example actually brought up something else, which is another point I talk about is making things concrete.

So, your example of the AI companies, if you’re talking about these very abstract concepts, it’s really hard for people to remember that stuff. But if you give people a concrete story or a concrete example, they’re going to be much more likely to remember that. And, in fact, it’s going to dominate their judgments about whatever it is you’re telling them about because it’s going to be so memorable.

So, when I wrote my book, this was a big challenge because, in science, we’re often in our heads in this very abstract world, and we’re trying to make these arguments about things that are very not tangible. And I had to come up with stories, which you try to write from your experiences, so there are stories from my life all through the book that talk about all these crazy things. But those stories make concrete some point that I’m trying to convey.

Or they open up this question that people wouldn’t have necessarily thought about it and again trigger their curiosity. But either way, that concrete story, especially if it’s emotionally engaging, it will plant itself in people’s memory. And then anything that you attach to that story now becomes more memorable too.

Pete Mockaitis
And it also helps explain why I can binge watch TV shows because the gap is “What’s going to happen to this character?” And I’m situated, I’ve got the scene, I know the context, the environment, the stakes, what they’re trying to accomplish, but what I don’t know is how it’s going to turn out. And I might just have to watch many episodes to satisfy that.

Charan Ranganath
And that’s why if you’re watching it something with commercials, they always stack the commercials towards the end because, by that time, you’ve built up enough knowledge about what’s happening that you’re really urgently trying to figure out what’s happening. And so, if you put a gap there and you have a commercial break, people are in the state of curiosity, and, in some sense, they’re going to be more receptive to that commercial.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, Charan, before we hear about some of your favorite things, any key things you want to make sure to mention or put out there?

Charan Ranganath
I would say one big one is, since we’ve been talking about AI, humans are very different in the way that we learn and remember relative to machine learning. And I think I like to get this point out, I don’t get enough opportunities to say it because there’s just so much hype and, frankly, a lot of bullsh**.

There’s so much bullsh** out there about AI and this concept of artificial general intelligence, which is a very dumb concept. Because, essentially, if you look at the kind of constraints on machine learning and the constraints of human learning, they’re very, very different. And, realistically speaking, humans are dumb in many ways that machines aren’t, and machines are really dumb in ways that humans aren’t.

And I realized that you need to have a lot of humility when you talk about where technology is going because there’s lots of stuff we haven’t been able to foresee. But the thing is that the human brain basically evolved to get certain things done, basically to propagate our genes, to keep us alive long enough to propagate our genes, and to get the offspring protected and so forth, and be able to help us find a mate.

Machine learning doesn’t have those constraints. So, machine learning doesn’t have the same resource limitations. I mean, if you look at like ChatGPT, it can take down an entire power grid. I mean, the carbon footprint is huge. My brain is using less power than an incandescent light bulb. It’s just orders of magnitude different.

And people will say, “Oh, that’s because we just need neuromorphic computing and everything will figure itself out,” and that’s just not true. The principle of human learning is we try to get as much information as possible from as little information as possible. And so, there’s this kind of sense in AI where it’s like we just dump enough training data and these machines can do everything.

And humans are like constantly reducing the amount of data that they get, the amount of data they process and work with, but we’re doing it in a way that’s fairly intelligent. It’s optimized for the information that’s new and surprising. It’s driven by things that are biologically significant to us. And so, you can hook up a camera to a kid and train, like use the video information to train like a state-of-the-art AI system, and it’s going to do all sorts of interesting things.

But that’s because the kids done the hard work of looking at everything that’s important. So, ChatGPT can do a lot of cool stuff but that’s because humans reasoned about all these things, put it in writing, and then it’s just memorizing what we’ve given it, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, “You don’t get the credit for all that.”

Charan Ranganath
Exactly. Now, that doesn’t mean that algorithms, in general, are consistent, and they can have a memory that is more faithful to what it’s been trained on than humans can be. And humans have all sorts of biases because, I have a whole chapter talking about this, that there’s a lot of learning that happens under the hood in our brain that we’re not necessarily aware of. And that learning can bias us in a lot of ways.

It can make us go for things that are very familiar. Like, if you hear the word Budweiser over and over again, it’s going to seem like it should be a better beer than some beer that you’ve never heard of before, because, like, if it just is a generic store beer. And, of course, for people who are into beer, they might not think Budweiser is good. But the point is that Budweiser advertises, even though you’d think everyone knows what Budweiser is.

But Budweiser advertises because if you say that, you get that name out in front of people and you put some image in front of people enough, maybe you’re going to be 5% more likely to pick out Budweiser than Miller Lite at the grocery store, and that translates to huge amounts of sales. So, I think that’s something where humans are really susceptible is in our biases.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Charan, this is fascinating stuff. Thank you so much for sharing the time with us. And I wish you many happy memories.

Charan Ranganath
Thank you. Thank you. It’s been a lot of fun and it was a memorable conversation.

1004: Seth Godin on How to Maximize Your Impact and Deliver Work That Matters

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Seth Godin shares insightful stories and perspectives to help us think strategically and create meaningful change in a complex world.

You’ll Learn

  1. The mindset that makes you indispensable
  2. Why to embrace that you’re an impostor 
  3. Three questions to ask with every project 

About Seth

Seth Godin is the author of 22 books that have been bestsellers around the world and have been translated into more than 35 languages. He’s also the founder of the altMBA and The Akimbo Workshops, online seminars that have transformed the work of thousands of people. 

He writes about the post-industrial revolution, the way ideas spread, marketing, quitting, leadership and most of all, changing everything. You might be familiar with his books Linchpin, Tribes, The Dip and Purple Cow. His book, This Is Marketing, was an instant bestseller around the world. The newest book, The Practice, is out at the end of 2020 and is already a bestseller. His newest project is leading a worldwide group of volunteers creating The Carbon Almanac. 

In addition to his writing and speaking, Seth has founded several companies, including Yoyodyne and Squidoo. His blog (which you can find by typing “seth” into Google) is one of the most popular in the world. His podcast is in the top 1% of all podcasts worldwide. 

In 2018, he was inducted into the Marketing Hall of Fame. More than 20,000 people have taken the powerful Akimbo workshops he founded, including thealtMBA and The Marketing Seminar. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank you, Sponsors!

Seth Godin Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Seth, welcome back.

Seth Godin
Thank you for having me. It’s good to see you.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I am excited to dig into some of your insights and wisdom and stories and fun that you got cooked up in your latest book, This is Strategy: Make Better Plans. Could you kick us off with a particularly fascinating, surprising, counterintuitive nugget that you’ve come across as you’re putting this piece together?

Seth Godin
Potatoes.

Pete Mockaitis
Potatoes. That’s surprising.

Seth Godin
There were no potatoes in Europe until 1500 or so. They evolved and were hybridized in Peru. Well, when potatoes arrived, it’s worth noting that potatoes are twice as efficient at creating calories and food for humans as any other food that you can grow.

But when potatoes took off, Dublin, in the 1800s, was the most densely populated place on earth and has never retained, become that densely populated since. So, potatoes are the key to all of this. Anyway, because the people in Europe were colonialists, they looked down on things that were strange, it wasn’t high status. Potatoes came close to being banned in England, and they were banned in France.

And a guy, an entrepreneur, wanted to get potatoes into the diets of people who were starving and who needed food. He had access to the court, so he got Marie Antoinette to wear potato flowers in her hair, just as a little signal that maybe potatoes would be okay, but that wasn’t enough. So then, he rented some farmland a few miles away from Versailles and planted a whole bunch of potatoes and hired armed guards to stand watch over the plot all day but at night, he sent them home.

So, of course, the peasants, seeing that this high value item wasn’t guarded, stole potatoes, ate them, discovered that they were just great. And that’s how France was saved. The lesson of this is strategy is your philosophy of becoming. What moves will you make? What tasks will you take on to change the system, to see the system, and then change it? And it’s all about status, and affiliation, the freedom from fear. It’s time all woven together so that we can do the work we’re proud of.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s beautiful, and there’s a lot there. I want to maybe get a contrasting story. Tell us the tale of your hot take on how organ donation should work.

Seth Godin
Well, a relative needed a kidney and so I got to learn a lot about the system. It turns out, in the United States, kidney donation is opt-in, and it turns out that every year millions of kidneys are buried that could go to somebody who needed them, and this leads to a shortage and a waiting list. The problem with the waiting list, of course, is that people are dying to get on it, and they’re dying when they’re on it.

So, lots of things have been suggested. Most of them are horrible, like paying poor people to donate their kidneys when they’re dead. And I got to thinking about the game theory here, the strategy that you could bring to the system, and Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, a well-regarded cardiologist, worked with me. We wrote a paper, published it in Transplantation Journal. We did everything right, and even though my idea is correct, it didn’t get adopted. And in the book, I outlined exactly what we did wrong.

But the short version is this. Right now, opting in to donate a kidney has some fear associated with it because you have to acknowledge you’re going to die, and you have to think about how your family is going to engage with that. If we just added one shift to the rule set, which is your priority on the wait list is based on how long you have signed up to be a donor because now there’s no moral issue, right? If you’re not willing to be a donor, you shouldn’t be willing to be a recipient.

If that is the case, that there’s a priority to people who donated early, everyone’s going to get on the list as soon as they can because you would be afraid of being left out. Tension, and status, and affiliation. As a result, the shortage would go away and we wouldn’t need a list. But – and this is the lesson – the people who are in charge of the list are risk averse. The people who are in charge of the list don’t want to go first. The people who are in charge of the list, the worst thing they can imagine is screwing things up.

So, in order to get them to say, “Yes,” I would have needed to spend four years on the road, going to conferences, writing papers, going to meetings, dealing with committees, doing tests, and I wasn’t willing to do that sacrifice. And that is a key lesson in how we make change happen, which is don’t try to start a log on fire if the kindling you have is too small.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s great. And what it’s hitting home for me here is that your kidney idea and potatoes are both fabulous. I love them both. I’m a good Lithuanian boy. We love our potatoes. And it’s intriguing, I think, and this might be sort of a no-duh for many, but I think a number of professionals who strive to be awesome at their job, kind of get a rude awakening at times that just being great, having a fantastic idea or product or offer or solution or skill set isn’t adequate to make it happen.

Seth Godin
Correct. Well said. And that’s why the first two ideas that I just shared with you are not about your job. They’re about projects. But most of us have a job and we have a choice. Either our analysis is, “My job is to do my job, to wait for instructions, just like I did in school, and to do the tasks that are put in front of me.” The alternative is to view my job as a series of projects where I go to people and I enroll them in working with me to make the change I seek to make.

The problem with the first path is, while it might give you peace of mind in the short run, particularly in a changing world with AI and everything else, you’re going to be a cog in a system that doesn’t care about you. Whereas, if you can adopt an awesome mindset to say, “I want to be a contribution. I do projects. I make change happen,” the doors are wide open.

And the CEOs I talk to from companies big and small, that’s what they want from their employees. Unfortunately, they act in a way that doesn’t signal that. They act in a way that makes it feel like third grade and you’re just trying to get through the day.

Pete Mockaitis
And so, you zeroed in on a few of these key principles, difference makers, status, affiliation, fear. And, yes, I think there, I think I see them front and center in terms of, “You know, if I stick my neck out and do this kind of weird thing that nobody else seems to be talking about, so maybe it’s not important, then I could very well look like a total idiot here, and so my status could be down, my affiliation could be down, people not asking me, inviting me to cool stuff anymore, and I’m just afraid of that. Ultimately, you know, getting fired, losing income, got to sell the house, got to downsize, all the things that could unfold.” So, help us, how do we kind of navigate through those core issues?

Seth Godin
So, you’ve nailed it. And the one thing you left off the list that people are motivated by is the freedom from fear. Not actual risk, but the freedom from feeling like we are taking a risk. And it turns out that work has amplified our fear. That’s how they get us to comply and it’s a trap because, the people who get the joke and are willing to encounter the feeling of fear, actually have the most stable and resilient jobs.

So, my first job, I didn’t know any better, I was 23 years old, I was lucky enough to be working with Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, and Michael Crichton, I launched a whole line of science fiction adventure games, and it was a job, I wasn’t the boss. And the packaging was absolutely beautiful but I needed a way to seal the package for the stores because Target and Lechmere and other mass merchants didn’t want this fourfold gate thing open.

So, they said, “You have to shrink wrap it,” and I didn’t want to shrink wrap my beautiful packaging. So, I ordered 10,000 little tiny Velcro dots to hold it shut. The problem is that 10,000 little tiny Velcro dots do not adhere and stick to coated cardstock. And as a result, my peers happily made fun of me for months. And the thing about it is the 10,000 tiny little Velcro dots probably cost the company $400. And because I was willing to dance with that, I launched more than a dozen gold or platinum level pieces of software in the time it took my colleagues to launch one or two middling products.

Because my posture was the best surfers find good waves. Here’s a wave and it’s not fatal. I can lean into possibility. I can do projects that could be generous if they work and aren’t about my ego but are about making a change. And I knew that the downside was, yes, maybe I was going to get fired. I came within a day of getting fired.

But if I was going to get fired, it wasn’t going to be because I was timid and it wasn’t going to be because I was selfish. It was going to be because I was bringing possibility to the table that made people uncomfortable. But I knew that that’s the definition of being awesome at your job. We don’t need you to comply more than everyone else. I can go to Upwork for that. I can go to Fiverr for that. What we need from you is to push and to imagine because that’s what’s worth paying for you.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s really powerful. And so, zooming in on, I guess, the fundamental mindset that you had cooking with regard to the dots is whereas, others in that same position say, “Oh, I don’t know. I don’t know. I guess shrink-wrapping is the thing that we do. So, hey, that’s a shame, but, okay, shrink-wrapping, here we go.” So, they might just go down that pathway.

But because you’re willing to take the occasional oopsie and embarrassment, you are liberated and emboldened to charge ahead and do a lot of great stuff and get way more big wins than a couple of little scuff losses along the way.

Seth Godin
Yeah. So, here’s one way to think about it, and I learned this accidentally at business school. A business school professor has a challenge where they’re teaching a case. They’ve got 60 people in her class, and she has to call on people to move the conversation forward. And I showed up at business school, I was one of the younger people there, and it became clear to me that the spreadsheets and the two-thirds of the case that was about crunching the numbers, it was going to make my eyes bleed. I was never going to be good at it. I didn’t want to be good at it.

So, I decided that I was going to invest all my effort on reading about the personalities and the situations, and not even open the spreadsheet that came with it. And I made it clear through my actions that if a professor wanted that kind of analysis, that’s the day to call on me. That if they wanted to embarrass me and ask me about the numbers, they were welcome to, but that would ruin the… that gets old. They don’t want to do that. They don’t want to set me up to fail. I want to set them up to succeed.

So, if you earn the reputation at work that you’re the person who does interesting things with energy, that you’re the person who contributes and raises the quality of conversation, if you’re the one who asks hard questions, you can hire a boss that wants you to do that, and now you have job security forever. Whereas if you are, you can pick anyone, and I mean anyone, trying to fit in all the way, the minute they can find someone cheaper than you, I promise they will.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s a hard reality check, a true one. I’m reminded, we have a conversation publishing shortly, with Duncan Wardle who worked at Disney, and he developed a reputation for making impossible things happen, which was so fun because they just kept giving him these super cool out-there jobs, and he just kept getting to do them and getting cool results and building a career reputation, and now consulting practice and books and all those things.

And so, that’s quite beautiful how you get a bit of a, the word personal brand feels a little shallow for this. It’s a reputation, it’s an oomph, it’s an ethos, it’s a vibe, it’s a thing that you carry within you and is recognized by others and that perpetuates more phenomenal opportunities.

Seth Godin
But let’s be very clear, this is not about talent and what you are born with. You begin this by being the person who orders lunch better than anybody else, because ordering lunch is hardly fatal, and the people who order lunch and always order the same thing, boring thing wrapped in the shrink wrap and everything else, those people, you can count on them for boring lunch.

But if they come to expect that you’ve done your homework and you realize that two of the people are vegans and one person is gluten free and you found this place, and dah, dah, dah, and lunch was great, you haven’t pigeon-holed yourself as an admin. You have pigeon-holed yourself as someone who cares. And from that, you will get better at caring and being seen as caring.

And so, it’s not that, you know, “Seth started doing this at the beginning of his career, so I will never be able to do it.” It’s, I just was lucky enough to be present with people who challenged me to be challenging. And once I got a little better at it, I could do it more. And so, that’s what we seek to do. And I don’t think I tell this story in the book, but one of the key bits of development I had in my career, it’s the first day of work at Spinnaker Software. It’s my summer job. I am the 30th employee. The company would grow to have hundreds of people and then get acquired and stuff like that. But I walk in, there’s no voicemail, there’s no email, the fax had just been installed, and on the receptionist desk, is this plastic carousel with 50 slots in it and a Dymo label maker to put each person’s name on one slot.

So, you would walk in after lunch or you would walk in in the morning, you’d spin and spin and spin this thing until you found your name and then there’d be the pink message slips. You had to do this three, four, five times a day. It wasn’t in alphabetical order. It was in the order people had been hired. That makes sense because otherwise you’d have to rebuild the thing every time you hired someone. And I walk in and I look at this thing, and I go, “I’m going to have to look at this thing five times a day spinning, spinning, spinning, spinning, spinning, so does everyone else.”

So, I reach over to the receptionist desk, and she has a one of those magnetic things filled with paper clips, and I pull out a paper clip and I put it next to my name. So, now all you got to do is spin to my paper clip and I’ll be able to find my message, and the people who know they’re near me can spin to my paperclip and save time. Well, within 24 hours, it was festooned with different-colored paperclips and pipe cleaners, everyone had a little flag over their thing.

I saved the company many, many, many hours of spinning. It wasn’t fatal. It was awesome, and no one told me to do it. No one said, “You’re the senior vice president of paperclip affixing.” Instead, I saw a problem and I solved it. I didn’t have to take credit for it. I didn’t have to send out a memo. I just took responsibility, and if someone had said that was stupid, I would have taken my paperclip out.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s beautiful and very resonant. My mom ended up becoming the CEO of the local credit union because she noticed the former CEO was vacuuming after everyone left, and she’s like, “Well, I know how to vacuum.” And so, to your point, she did not get a reputation for, “Oh, Jan can clean.” It’s like, “Oh, Jan cares. She’s invested in this facility and what we’re about. Well, okay. I’m going to give her some more responsibilities,” and then one thing leads to another.

Seth Godin
Go, Jan, go.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, absolutely. So, let’s talk about this fear business. Freedom from fear, it’s interesting because I’m thinking about Dr. Casey Means makes an interesting point about feeling safe. She’s like, “To be incredibly clear, you and everyone you’ve ever loved will die. So, in one way, none of us are really safe.”

Seth Godin
Correct, not to mention the asteroid. Yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
Uh-oh. Now I’m fearful, Seth. So, in a way, none of us are really safe. However, feeling safe is associated with all kinds of wonderful benefits. There’s creativity and health and freedom from chronic disease and all these things. So, likewise, with regard to freedom from fear, none of us are truly free from all risk. Like, we may very well get fired and someone may very well say, “That’s a very stupid idea and you’re not allowed to come to these meetings anymore.” That can happen. But if we have freedom from fear, boy, we unlock a lot of goodness. So, do you have any pro tips on getting to the other side of that?

Seth Godin
Well, we need to talk about resistance, but first I just want to do a small asterisk about fired, which is, I remember a few decades ago when Ford Motor Company saw that sales of the Ford Explorer were slowing down and they fired 10,000 people in one day. Here’s the thing. If their union had been smart, the UAW, a year earlier, would have said, “You’re making junky cars. We’re going on strike until you design a better car.”

Because the fact is those 10,000 people didn’t deserve to get fired. They got fired because other people designed a lousy car. That’s the risk we face, actually, when we show up at work; the risk of complying, not the risk of leading. So, this freedom from fear. If you talk to people who run the marathon, the first thing you’ll discover is that some people quit at mile 20 and other people finish.

And the difference between quitting at 20 and finishing is not how fit you are. It’s, “What are you going to do with the tired?” because they all get tired, but the people at 20 don’t know what to do with the tired so they have to stop, and the people who make it to mile 26, their coach didn’t teach them how not to be tired. Their coach taught them what to do when they feel tired. And the same thing is true with the fear.

Resistance, the thing that holds us back, writer’s block, Steve Pressfield’s great term for it, makes us feel like an imposter. And imposter syndrome is real, that when you get asked to do something, where you are confronting the future, something that hasn’t been done before, you will feel like an imposter. And so, the question which you just asked is, “How do I make imposter syndrome go away?” And the answer is, “You can’t.” And the reason you can’t is you’re an imposter, and so am I.

If you are making assertions about the future, you can’t be sure. You can’t guarantee that you are right. So, if you’re being honest with yourself, you’re simply pretending that the future will be the way you say. And so, when we feel that show up, we can’t make it go away, but we can dance with it. We can welcome it. We can invite it to sit down for tea. We can use it as a marker and a symbol that we might be onto something. And if I don’t feel afraid when I’m doing my work, then I know I am not trying hard enough.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Can you expand on that a little bit because that shows that you care, that you’re trying something new and challenging on your edge, outside your comfort zone, like these kinds of things?

Seth Godin
Yeah. Well, how long does it take to type a 200-page book? And the answer is a day, maybe four days if you’re Robert Caro, but not that much longer. So why does it take so long to write a book? And the answer is, “You don’t know what the next sentence is supposed to be.” That the work you’re getting paid for is to explore what the next sentence is, not to type.

But a whole bunch of people signed up to do a job where they’re in the typing pool. And the problem is the typing pool is no longer filled with employees. That the miracle of AI plus outsourcing is that if I can write down a job, I can get someone to do it faster and cheaper than you.

Pete Mockaitis
If I can write down a job. Yeah, I could chew on that for a while. What is write-downable and what is not?

Seth Godin
Correct. So, I can say to somebody, or to an AI, “Please read this 100-page document and highlight 20 of the quotes.” And if all I need is the quotes, that’s mechanical. I can write that down. If it’s, “Please highlight the 20 most important quotes,” that’s worth paying a human for. Because the decision of what are the most important ones, the choice to leave the other ones out, that’s risky. There’s no guarantee you’re right. Fear arises.

And so, where I get into trouble with AI, where I get into trouble with Upwork, is if I ask someone to do a job where I can’t write down all the steps, because then, inevitably, I get disappointed. But if I can write down all the steps, I would be a fool to hire an expensive human to do it when I got a computer that’ll do it all night for free.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. So, pick the best quotes, or the most engaging quotes, or the most viral quotes, or the most thought-provoking quotes. So, if someone on Upwork were to say, “Okay. Cool. Sure thing, Seth. How do I determine which ones are more thought-provoking than the others?” then that is supremely not write-downable.

Even if you could write down, it’s like, “Well, you know what? It might have, like, an interesting contrast, like ‘Ask not what your country can do, but what you can do for your country.'” You know, so it might. So, any document or guidance you could produce would be incomplete, and, thus, in your parlance, not write-down-able.

Seth Godin
Correct.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. Yeah, that’s juicy. Okay. So, we’re all impostors, so we dance with it and it’s not going to disappear. And, in fact, we could hopefully learn to embrace it as an indicator of something good and positive and exciting.

Seth Godin
Yeah, that’s our job. That is actually what it is to be awesome at your job, is to do things that are not write-downable, and this doesn’t mean you have to be a super fancy executive. So, there’s a fancy hotel chain in the US and the chambermaids are the lowest paid people in the organization. They’re the people who make up your room every day. Every one of them gets a $250 per guest budget to spend any way they want to please a guest.

So, they’re the front line. If they discover a couple really upset about something, they can just interrupt while they’re making the bed, and say, “Oh, I’m so sorry to hear that. Why don’t you just go have lunch? It’s on us.” And they just made a decision that is not write-downable in the moment, and this is somebody who’s getting paid minimum wage.

If you don’t trust your frontline people to do that, you’ve decided to make a commodity and to race to the bottom. The alternative is to race to the top, is to stand for something and to trust your people to understand the strategy and help you get there.

Pete Mockaitis
Seth, I love that so much. My very first W2 job-job was at Kmart, and Pantry Pete, they called me. And when I learned in the training video that I had “the power to please” you know, like, “Oh, sorry, we’re out of the Pepsi 24-pack, but I can give you two 12-packs for the same price as the 24-pack,” I thought that was the coolest thing ever. And I even wrote down in my schedule, “not work, but exercise power to please,” or EPP because I was dorky.

But it really was the funnest thing I did in terms of, I guess it was the autonomy and pleasing people feels good and I think that’s just a thing that I wish every team, organization, had more of, that capacity to do that.

Seth Godin
And Kmart closed its last store last week, and the reason is because they took that piece away and raced to the bottom. They tried to out-Walmart Walmart, out-Amazon Amazon, and that’s really hard to do, because if you race to the bottom, you might win.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, I love that language, out-Walmart Walmart, out-Amazon Amazon, and they sure didn’t out-Target Target. Sorry, Kmart. I mean, I’m a loyalist, got the apron, but, yeah, Target really wiped the floor there. So, let’s talk about you have a great quote in your book, “We mistakenly spend more time figuring out how to win the game we’re in instead of choosing which game to play in the first place.” I think there is just loads of wisdom in this. Can you unpack that a bit for us?

Seth Godin
Well, so we’re surrounded by games. Social media is a game. How many followers do you have? Whichever project you’re taking on is a game. Your career is a game. How much money do you get paid? These are scoring mechanisms that imply what the game is for, that there are people, billionaires, who think that what the world is for is for them to make as much money as possible.

And the thing is, if you confront a game that you cannot win, that is making you unhappy, trying harder to win that game is probably the wrong path. And so, the smallest viable audience gives us the freedom to pick who we are working with and for, and to ignore everyone else. And that gives us the responsibility to pick a game we want to be responsible for, as opposed to just saying, “Well, I’m playing the same game everybody else is.” Everything goes back to high school.

When you were in high school, you could have played the game of “How do I become Homecoming King or Queen?” or you could have played the game of “How do I get on the football team?” or you could have played the game of “How do I become first chair clarinetist?” Those are totally different games. And if you’re playing one of those games really, really hard, but the only reason is because you need to win it, you haven’t thought about which game is good for you and your world, you’re probably making a mistake.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And so, in the professional context, I’m just thinking about folks who just ran down the path, “Go be a doctor. Go be a lawyer. Go be an engineer. Oh, shoot, I hate this. Uh-oh.”

Seth Godin
Correct.

Pete Mockaitis
Can you give us some more examples of folks who have made this mindset paradigm shift and it’s been transformational for them?

Seth Godin
Well, one of the keys to the shift is to ignore sunk costs. Sunk costs are all the things you’ve invested in – a law degree, building something, buying something – and defending them going forward. You’re 35 years old, you’re a dentist, you hate being a dentist. It’s not going to get any better. You’re still going to hate being a dentist, but you keep doing it because you’ve already invested 10 years of your life and all this money in being a dentist, which means you’re sacrificing the next 40 years of your life to defend a choice that might’ve been a good one in retrospect when you made it, but it isn’t a good one anymore.

And the response is, “All sunk costs are gifts from your former self.” The Pete of yesterday, or 10 years ago, did something for me today, and you are allowed to say, “No, thanks.” You don’t have to accept the gift. Now you can make a new decision with new information. I could take this gift of a dental practice and this dental degree, or I’m going to say, “No, thank you,” and I could go become a tree farmer.

And shifting like that turns out to be good-decision science, but it’s also great for our heads, because every day you go back to your job, every day you go to work, you are re-signing up to accept the gift from yesterday. But if the gift isn’t helping you, don’t do it. So, yes, I know people who graduated from Harvard Law School but are now podcasters and life coaches. I know people who had a really good run doing something in Silicon Valley, but now they’re busy building boats because they didn’t give up, and they’re not retired. They’re creating value. They’re just playing a different game.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. Some gifts need to go to Goodwill, and that’s totally fine. That’s acceptable.

Seth Godin
Yeah, it’s critical, actually.

Pete Mockaitis
A lot of this rich thinking we’re doing here seems to only exist, from my perspective, outside the realm of the urgent, the here-and-now next action. How do you think about dealing with urgency and getting the headspace to think wisely and strategically?

Seth Godin
So, you either live in the last minute, the next minute, or the best minute. Those are the three choices. So, what does it mean? The last minute is whatever is the highest on my urgency list is what I’m going to do right now, because there’s always going to be something that’s the highest on your urgency list. That lets you off the hook. You don’t have to be responsible for any of your choices because the urgency list determines it. That’s doing everything at the last minute.

The next minute is offered to everybody, every day. We get the next minute. What will we choose to do with it? And the best minute is yesterday you had one minute that was the best minute of your day. Everyone did. How can you make it so that your best minutes stack up? How can you make it so you have more of those? Because very few people who spend their life working at the last minute have many best minutes to report.

The short order cooks don’t usually have a lot of highlights from their day because all they know is someone ordered some eggs, they made some eggs, and then they went back to the next thing. And the power comes from taking a deep breath, leaving the urgent alone, it will take care of itself, and focusing instead on “How do I make this a best minute?” And you can’t work enough hours to defeat everybody because there’s only 24 hours in a day, but you could work less hours and make a bigger difference if you did the right thing with your time.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Seth, I love that question, “How do I make this the best minute?” Your book, This is Strategy, is filled with useful questions. Could you share a couple of them that you think might be the most frequently useful and transformative?

Seth Godin
Well, the ones I keep coming back to are “Who’s it for?” “What’s it for?” and “What’s the change I seek to make?” Because “Who’s it for?” makes it very clear who my client is, who my boss is, who my customer is. Ignore everyone else. “What’s it for?” is why do they need this from me? What are they dreaming of when I show up? Where’s the empathy of what I did for them?

And the third question is, “What is the change I seek to make?” because if you’re not making a change, then you’ve just signed up to be a cog. You are here to make a change. Our work is actually projects. Our job is getting paid by somebody to consistently do projects, but your projects are here to make a change happen. Can you point to the change you are making?

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, Seth, tell me anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about a few of your favorite things?

Seth Godin
I would say the single best thing people can do, if any of this has resonated, is to find someone not related to you, and meet with them once a week by Zoom to tell each other the truth, to answer these questions together because what you will discover is, knowing the meeting is coming, you will change your behavior so that you can report in the meeting that you’re onto something. And just having that sounding board can open the door to make a difference.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Now, could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Seth Godin
In the classic self-help book, Dune, the Bene Gesserit say, “Fear is the mind-killer,” three words probably worth tattooing somewhere on your body.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite study or experiment or piece of research?

Seth Godin
I think that understanding what the marshmallow test really measures is really helpful. The marshmallow test has been seen as saying that if a three-year-old can sit for five minutes with a marshmallow so they’ll get two, that self-restraint leads to 20, 30 years of happiness. So, therefore, people who are “born” with self-restraint are destined for greatness.

And some of that is correct, but it’s worth understanding that a kid who grows up in a household that’s under stress, where there’s trauma, where there isn’t dinner on the table, where parents are doing their best but can’t always keep their promises, those kids understandably eat the marshmallow because who knows if you’re going to come back with two marshmallows. You probably won’t.

So, I think we need to give people a little bit more grace and a lot more support because we don’t all win the birthday lottery. And what we can do as a culture is create the conditions for people to become resilient and to find self-restraint so that we can all maximize the joy we have and that we create for others.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?

Seth Godin
You know, it’s really fascinating to me that you’re not supposed to talk about your own book, but I listen to my own books all the time, because if I’m headed to a meeting or I’m feeling stuck and I put on The Practice, it gets under my skin again. But if I have to pick another book, I think if you haven’t read The War of Art by my friend Steve Pressfield, you need to do that right now.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool, something you use that helps you be awesome at your job?

Seth Godin
You might not have a spokeshave at home, but a well-sharpened spokeshave is your first choice for woodworking. And for my job that involves typing, Claude.ai is so much better than ChatGPT. It’s harder working, it’s kinder, it’s not arrogant, and if you’re not using it every day, you’re being left behind because the future is arriving very fast.

Pete Mockaitis
If I may, I do have a ChatGPT premium subscription, and I’m thinking about switching. Have you looked around to all of them; the Gemini, the Perplexity, the dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, and Claude’s your winner? Or you just found Claude and said, “Yep, I’m sticking with you”?

Seth Godin
I use Perplexity every day. If you’re using Google, you’ve made a mistake. Perplexity completely defeats Google. I’ve tried Gemini a little bit. It’s really fun if you want to tweak Google, to ask Google to compare things. Like, type in “Pop-Tarts versus Doberman Pinschers,” and it will give you a little essay about the difference between a Pop-Tart and a Doberman Pinscher, as opposed to say, “That’s a stupid question.” Claude would say, “Why are you asking me that?” and do it in a kind way.

So, I haven’t tried all of them. What’s magic about Claude is they spent a lot of time trying to create something that will challenge you to do even better with the next time you interact with it. Whereas, ChatGPT, to me, feels like it’s always doing me a favor, it does the minimum amount, and it argues, it really argues with you when it’s wrong, and that just pisses me off.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it’s like, I say, “Hey, give me this answer,” and it tells me what I would do to get the answer. It’s like, “Yes, I know. Go do that now, please.”

Seth Godin
Right.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite habit?

Seth Godin
I would say that my favorite habit, if people know me, is that I have habits. That I have intentional habits. That I eat the same thing, I get up at the same time, but most of my habits are about wearing an actual uniform and having a practice when it comes to my job. I do not wait to be inspired. Tomorrow, there’ll be a post on my blog, not because it’s the best post I ever wrote, but because it’s Friday. And knowing that these are things I do, frees up my mind to make a different sort of decision. And we all have habits, but if they’re not intentional habits, I think they’re probably getting in the way.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to especially resonate with folks; they quote it back to you often, they Kindle book highlight, they retweet to the high heavens?

Seth Godin
My most successful blog post is also my shortest. What a surprise. You don’t need more time. You just need to decide.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And, Seth, if folks want to learn more about you or get in touch, where would you point them?

Seth Godin
Seths.blog, there’s 9,000 blog posts, one a day for a very, very long time. And if you go to Seths.blog/TIS, you’ll find out everything you need to know about this new book.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Seth Godin
You’ve already done the key thing, which is listening to Pete’s podcast, which is showing up and announcing you want to be awesome at your job. The challenge is, “Can you actually say what it would mean to be awesome at your job?” Because if you don’t know where you’re going, it doesn’t matter how fast you’re going there.

Pete Mockaitis
Seth, thank you. This was so much fun. I wish you much luck with your book, This is Strategy, and I hope you have many excellent plans well-executed.

Seth Godin
Thank you, Pete. Keep making this ruckus. It matters.